In the Matter of Evelyn Proctor

Three separate clients hired or had Evelyn Proctor appointed to represent them: one for an uncontested divorce, one for a child support modification, and one in a misdemeanor criminal case. In each matter, Proctor took fees or was appointed, then failed to file the necessary paperwork, stopped responding to her clients' calls and letters, and in some cases failed to return unearned fees or client files after being fired. The State Bar tried to serve her with disciplinary papers in person but could not locate her, so it served her by publication in a newspaper. Proctor never responded or contested the charges, so under the bar's rules she was treated as having admitted the facts and waived her right to a hearing. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the record, agreed she violated multiple professional conduct rules, found aggravating factors and only one mitigating factor, and ordered her disbarred.

The court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an attorney who abandoned three clients by failing to file their cases, failing to communicate, and failing to refund unearned fees, especially given her pattern of misconduct and lack of response to the State Bar.

The decision removes Proctor from the rolls of Georgia attorneys, protecting future clients from the same pattern of abandoned cases and unreturned fees. It also reinforces that Georgia attorneys who ignore State Bar investigations and default on discipline proceedings face the harshest available sanction.

Disbarred

1. Because Proctor did not respond to the State Bar's notice of discipline after being served by publication, she was in default under Bar Rule 4-208.1, meaning the facts alleged against her were deemed admitted and she waived her right to a hearing.
2. Based on those admitted facts, the court agreed Proctor violated several Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (found in Bar Rule 4-102), including rules requiring diligence (Rule 1.3), communication with clients (Rule 1.4), reasonable fees (Rule 1.5(a)), safekeeping and returning client property (Rule 1.15(I)(d)), protecting client interests upon termination (Rule 1.16(d)), and responding to Bar disciplinary inquiries (Rule 9.3).
3. The court noted that violations of Rule 1.3 and Rule 1.15(I)(d) each carry a maximum sanction of disbarment, while the other violated rules carry only a maximum of public reprimand, meaning the most serious charges already permitted the harshest penalty.
4. Applying the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the court found aggravating factors, including a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and Proctor's substantial legal experience, outweighing the single mitigating factor of no prior discipline.
5. Comparing this case to prior Georgia disbarment cases involving attorneys who abandoned clients and defaulted on discipline notices, the court concluded disbarment was consistent with past practice and appropriate here.

• attorney disbarment
• client abandonment
• State Bar of Georgia
• unrefunded legal fees