In THE MATTER OF ROBERT MALLORY CRAWFORD (Two Cases)

Robert Mallory Crawford, a former Pike County Superior Court judge and longtime lawyer, had deposited about $15,675 into a court's registry years earlier while representing a client in a property dispute. After his client died and the money sat unclaimed for nearly 14 years, Crawford, by then a sitting judge, arranged to have the court clerk send the entire amount to him, claiming it was an unpaid fee. He used the money personally until judicial investigators contacted him, at which point he returned it. The State Bar brought two disciplinary cases against him, one based on his criminal plea related to the incident and one based on his handling of the client funds and dishonesty. A special master found he violated several rules on handling client money and on dishonest conduct, and recommended disbarment. A review board agreed he violated the rules but recommended only a three-year suspension instead. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with the review board, imposing a three-year suspension and declining to separately address the criminal-plea-based case.

The court held that Crawford was not entitled to the registry funds because the special master's credibility finding rejecting his claimed fee agreement was not clearly erroneous, that he violated several rules governing client funds and honesty, and that a three-year suspension, not disbarment, was the appropriate discipline given this was a single course of misconduct.

The ruling shows that Georgia lawyers, including former judges, who take client or third-party money from court registries without a valid claim face serious professional discipline, though not always disbarment. It also clarifies that a prior judicial discipline proceeding does not automatically block a separate State Bar case over the same conduct.

Three-year suspension imposed

1. The court explained it generally defers to a special master's factual and credibility findings unless they are clearly erroneous, similar to the highly deferential 'any evidence' standard used elsewhere in Georgia law.
2. Applying that deference, the court found no clear error in the special master's conclusion that Crawford's claim of an oral fee agreement with his deceased client was not credible, based on facts like the money sitting unclaimed for 14 years and his overdrawn bank account when he took it.
3. Because Crawford was not entitled to the money, the court agreed he violated several rules requiring lawyers to keep client funds separate, notify clients, and hold funds in proper trust accounts, since he instead deposited the money into his own account and spent it.
4. The court also agreed Crawford violated the rule against dishonest conduct because he falsely told the court clerk he was entitled to the funds.
5. In setting punishment, the court weighed that this was a single course of misconduct, comparable to a prior two-year suspension case, but found extra aggravating factors here (his failure to acknowledge wrongdoing, vulnerable victims, and unlawful conduct) that justified the longer three-year suspension rather than disbarment.
6. The court declined to separately evaluate the related criminal-plea-based disciplinary case because it arose from the same misconduct and would not change the discipline already imposed.

• attorney discipline
• former judge
• client funds
• court registry
• State Bar of Georgia