In the Matter of Debra Kaye Scott

Debra Kaye Scott, a Georgia lawyer since 1994, admitted to two separate lapses in handling client matters. In one case, she accepted an extra $10,000 payment from a client believing it was an additional retainer, but never gave the client a written explanation of the fee, even though the client understood the payment differently. She later refunded the money. In a second case, she represented a client in an employment discrimination lawsuit but failed to press him hard enough to provide a witness and exhibit list before a court deadline, leading the trial court to dismiss his case. Scott asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to accept a Review Board reprimand, the mildest form of public discipline available, as punishment for violating rules requiring clear fee communication and client consultation. The State Bar agreed this discipline was appropriate given her lack of prior discipline, absence of dishonest motive, and efforts to make amends. The court reviewed the record and approved the petition, imposing the reprimand.

The court held that a Review Board reprimand, the least severe public sanction, is adequate discipline for an attorney who failed to communicate a fee change in writing and failed to adequately consult with a client before a court deadline, given the absence of dishonest motive and other mitigating factors.

The case reminds Georgia lawyers that they must put fee changes in writing and keep clients closely informed, especially near deadlines, or risk discipline. It also shows the State Bar's process for resolving minor misconduct through negotiated, lighter sanctions rather than lengthy hearings.

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted; Review Board reprimand imposed

1. The court looked to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a framework courts use to weigh an attorney's mental state, the harm caused, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, to decide the proper discipline.
2. It considered mitigating factors such as Scott's lack of a prior disciplinary record, her lack of a dishonest or selfish motive, her good faith effort to repay the client, and her expressed remorse.
3. It weighed against her the aggravating factor that she had substantial experience practicing law, which can make lapses in client communication more serious.
4. The court found her admitted violations of Rule 1.4 (requiring reasonable consultation with clients) and Rule 1.5(b) (requiring written explanation of fee arrangements) matched the type of conduct that similar past cases had resolved with a Review Board reprimand.
5. Because the maximum penalty for either violation is a public reprimand, and the Bar did not oppose the requested discipline, the court concluded the negotiated reprimand adequately served the public interest.

• attorney discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• fee agreement
• client communication
• Review Board reprimand