In the Matter of David Carleton Head

A client hired attorney David Carleton Head in 2020 to handle a criminal case and paid him $1,500. After Head's representation effectively ended in June 2021, the client repeatedly asked him to formally withdraw from the case, because the client could not get a public defender until Head did so. Head ignored those requests and did not withdraw until December 2021, delaying the client's access to a public defender until January 2022. The State Bar filed a Notice of Discipline seeking a public reprimand, and because Head never responded, he was in default and lost his right to a hearing. The Bar pointed to Head's three prior disciplinary actions as reasons to increase the punishment, but never described what misconduct led to those earlier cases. The Supreme Court of Georgia decided it could not evaluate how much weight those unexplained prior offenses should carry, so it rejected the Bar's proposed reprimand and sent the matter back for a better-supported filing.

The court held that it could not adopt the Bar's recommended public reprimand because the Bar failed to describe the underlying misconduct behind Head's three prior disciplinary actions, making it impossible to assess how much those prior matters should aggravate the appropriate sanction, so the Notice of Discipline was rejected.

The ruling means Head's discipline case remains unresolved and the Bar must refile with more detail about his disciplinary history. It also signals to the State Bar that vague references to a lawyer's past discipline are not enough to support a sanction, affecting how future attorney discipline cases are documented.

Notice of Discipline rejected

1. Because Head failed to file a Notice of Rejection after being served with the Bar's Notice of Discipline, he was in default under Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b), meaning he waived his right to a hearing and the facts alleged against him were deemed admitted.
2. The admitted facts showed Head violated several Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to promptly withdraw from representing a client and by ignoring the client's repeated requests for updates, which delayed the client's ability to get a public defender.
3. The Bar relied on ABA sentencing standards (guidelines courts use to pick an appropriate discipline) suggesting a reprimand fits negligent conduct causing injury, and cited Head's substantial legal experience and prior discipline as aggravating factors under ABA Standard 9.22.
4. The court explained that under Bar Rule 4-208.1, it may reject a Notice of Discipline rather than accept the Bar's recommended sanction if the record does not adequately support that recommendation.
5. Because the Bar never described what misconduct led to Head's three earlier disciplinary actions, the court could not determine how much those prior offenses should aggravate the current sanction, so it declined to impose the reprimand and rejected the notice.
6. The court instructed the Bar that any future filing must provide enough context about Head's prior discipline to allow assessment of its impact, and that if the Bar seeks a harsher sanction later, Head must get a new chance to respond.

• attorney discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• client abandonment
• public reprimand rejected