In the Matter of Phillip Norman Golub

An elderly, ailing woman hired attorney Phillip Norman Golub in 2014 to sue over a fraudulent transfer of her real property, paying him $7,500 in fees. Golub filed two lawsuits but let discovery drag on for years without taking basic steps to move the cases forward, and he communicated mainly with the client's son, who mistakenly believed the cases were on track. When the cases were finally set for hearing, Golub dismissed both lawsuits without telling anyone, later refiled them without notice, and never learned the client had died before the refiling. He also never substituted a proper party after her death or refunded any of his fee. A Special Master for the State Bar found Golub had violated multiple ethics rules and recommended a one-year suspension with conditions on reinstatement, including a full refund of the fee. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed and imposed that discipline.

The court held that Golub violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, and 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct by neglecting his client's lawsuits, failing to communicate, and failing to refund unearned fees, warranting a one-year suspension conditioned on repaying the fee.

The case shows Georgia clients, especially vulnerable ones relying on family members to communicate with their lawyer, can seek discipline when an attorney abandons their case and keeps them uninformed. It also signals to lawyers that failing to refund unearned fees and misleading clients through silence carries real consequences.

One-year suspension with conditions on reinstatement

1. The Special Master found Golub violated Rule 1.2(a), which requires a lawyer to consult with the client about the scope of representation, because he dismissed and later refiled the lawsuits without telling his client or her son.
2. The Special Master found Golub violated Rule 1.3, the diligence rule requiring lawyers to meet deadlines and pursue cases, because he let discovery stall for years and never took steps to move the lawsuits toward resolution.
3. The Special Master found Golub violated Rule 1.4(a), the communication rule, because he repeatedly failed to respond to the client's son's requests for updates and did not disclose key events like the dismissals and refilings.
4. The Special Master found Golub violated Rule 1.16(d), which requires refunding unearned fees when representation ends, because he never returned any of the $7,500 fee despite doing no completed work.
5. The Special Master found Golub violated Rule 3.2, requiring lawyers to expedite litigation, and Rule 8.4(a)(4), prohibiting conduct likely to mislead, because his silence and inaction left the client and her son with a false impression that the cases were progressing normally.
6. Applying the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the court weighed aggravating factors like prior discipline, substantial experience, multiple violations, and a vulnerable client against mitigating factors like lack of dishonest motive, health problems, and remorse, concluding a one-year suspension with a fee refund condition was appropriate.

• attorney suspension
• State Bar discipline
• client neglect
• unearned fee refund
• legal malpractice ethics