In the Matter of Sherri Len Washington

Sherri Len Washington, a Georgia lawyer since 2007, was accused of mishandling three separate clients' cases: a divorce client who lost her health insurance and a favorable outcome because Washington missed deadlines and skipped a trial date; a man convicted of child molestation whose appeal was dismissed after Washington stopped communicating following payment of her fee; and a homeowner suing a contractor whose case Washington never pursued despite a $3,000 retainer. Washington did not respond to the State Bar's formal complaint, so the facts were deemed admitted by default. A special master and the State Disciplinary Review Board recommended disbarment. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the record, found multiple violations of Georgia's professional conduct rules including dishonesty to a client and a court, and agreed that disbarment was the appropriate punishment given her prior disciplinary history and lack of any mitigating factors.

The court held that Washington's repeated abandonment of client matters, dishonesty to a client and a court, unearned fees, and failure to respond to Bar investigations, combined with her history of prior discipline and lack of mitigating factors, warranted disbarment under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.

The ruling removes a lawyer from practicing in Georgia, protecting future clients from similar neglect, and reinforces that lawyers who abandon cases, mislead clients or courts, and ignore Bar investigations face the harshest professional sanction available.

Disbarred

1. Because Washington never answered the Bar's formal complaint despite being personally served, the special master found her in default, meaning all factual allegations and rule violations in the complaint were treated as true.
2. The court applied the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a framework courts use to weigh the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the harm caused, and any aggravating or mitigating factors, to decide the punishment.
3. Applying that framework, the court found Washington knowingly or intentionally violated duties to her clients, the courts, and the legal system, causing serious or potentially serious harm, including a client's lost health insurance and another's dismissed appeal.
4. The court identified numerous aggravating factors, including Washington's prior discipline (a 2013 admonition and reprimands in 2011, 2013, and 2015), dishonest motive, a pattern of misconduct across multiple clients, and indifference to making restitution, with no mitigating factors present.
5. Comparing this case to prior disbarment cases involving similar patterns of client abandonment and misrepresentation, the court concluded disbarment was consistent with the discipline the court has imposed in similar circumstances.

• attorney disbarment
• State Bar of Georgia
• client neglect
• default judgment
• legal malpractice