In the Matter of David J. Farnham

David J. Farnham, a Georgia lawyer, was hired by a mother to pursue a personal injury claim for injuries her minor daughter suffered in a car accident. An insurance company paid $250,000 to settle the claim, and Farnham deposited the money into his trust account. Because the injured person was a minor, Farnham needed to file a petition in probate court to formally approve the settlement, but he repeatedly failed to do so and did not respond to many of his client's messages asking about the money. The State Bar of Georgia filed a formal complaint accusing Farnham of violating several rules of professional conduct. Rather than fight the charges, Farnham asked to voluntarily give up his law license. A special master reviewed the case and recommended the court accept that request. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed and ordered Farnham's name removed from the list of lawyers allowed to practice in Georgia.

The court held that Farnham's admitted violations of the rules requiring diligence, communication, and reasonable case management were serious enough that his petition to voluntarily surrender his law license, which is treated the same as disbarment, should be accepted.

The case shows how Georgia disciplines lawyers who mishandle client funds and fail to communicate, especially in cases involving vulnerable clients like injured children. It reassures the public that lawyers who neglect settlement funds face losing their license to practice.

Voluntary surrender of license accepted (equivalent to disbarment)

1. Farnham admitted in his petition for voluntary surrender that he failed to promptly file a required petition in probate court to approve a settlement for an injured minor, and failed to respond to his client's requests for information, violating rules on diligence and communication (Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2).
2. The court noted that violations of the diligence rules (Rules 1.2 and 1.3) can carry disbarment as the maximum punishment, while the communication and case-management rules (Rules 1.4 and 3.2) carry a public reprimand as the maximum, showing the seriousness of the underlying misconduct.
3. Both the State Bar and the Special Master recommended accepting the voluntary surrender of license, which under the bar rules is treated as equivalent to disbarment (Rule 1.0 (r)).
4. The court found the admitted facts and violations sufficient on their own to support accepting the surrender, so it did not need to resolve a dispute over whether Rule 3.2 actually applied to Farnham's conduct.
5. Because this outcome matched how the court had handled similar past cases involving lawyers who mishandled personal injury settlement funds, the court accepted the petition and ordered Farnham's name removed from the rolls of lawyers authorized to practice in Georgia.

• attorney discipline
• voluntary surrender of license
• trust account mismanagement
• personal injury settlement
• State Bar of Georgia