In the Matter of Edward Hine, Jr

Edward Hine, Jr., a Georgia lawyer since 1976, asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to accept a proposed six-month suspension after he admitted moving estate funds he was managing as executor into his own operating account without the beneficiaries' consent, among other rule violations. He said he repaid the money, disclosed the problem himself, and had no prior discipline record. The State Bar's response, however, revealed that Hine had also overcharged the estate's beneficiaries for fees and had failed to repay an $85,000 loan he took from a separate client trust for years, none of which Hine mentioned in his own petition. The question for the court was whether to accept Hine's proposed six-month suspension as adequate discipline. The court declined, holding that even the admitted estate misconduct alone could justify disbarment absent strong mitigation, and that Hine's failure to disclose the fee overcharge and trust loan undercut claims that he had been fully forthcoming. The court sent the matter back for further proceedings that address all of the conduct.

The court held that Hine's admitted misappropriation of estate funds alone could warrant disbarment absent substantial mitigating evidence, and that his petition omitted a related client trust loan and a fee overcharge, undermining claims of full disclosure and cooperation, so the proposed six-month suspension was rejected.

The ruling signals that Georgia lawyers seeking reduced discipline through voluntary petitions must disclose all related misconduct, not just the most convenient facts, or risk having their proposed sanctions rejected outright, potentially exposing them to harsher penalties like disbarment.

Petition for voluntary discipline rejected

1. The court explained that under Bar Rule 4-227(b), it may accept or reject a voluntary discipline petition, and it evaluates whether the admitted misconduct and any mitigating evidence justify the requested sanction.
2. Applying the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which guide Georgia courts in choosing attorney discipline, the court found that converting client funds for personal use and failing to obtain informed consent before doing so presumptively call for disbarment or a lengthy suspension.
3. The court found that, taken alone, Hine's admitted conduct in moving estate funds to his own account without beneficiary consent was serious enough that it could justify disbarment unless substantial mitigating evidence outweighed it.
4. The court noted that the Bar's response, and documents Hine himself submitted, revealed he had also overcharged estate beneficiaries in fees and had left an $85,000 debt to a separate client trust unpaid for years, neither of which Hine disclosed in his petition.
5. Because Hine omitted this related misconduct, the court concluded his claimed cooperation and full disclosure, offered as mitigation, were called into question, making it inappropriate to accept the proposed six-month suspension without addressing the undisclosed conduct.

• attorney discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• misappropriation of client funds
• estate administration
• voluntary discipline petition