In the Matter of David Roberson

David Roberson was disbarred in 2001 after mishandling a medical malpractice case, including improperly paying himself and a co-counsel from a client's settlement, inflating the client's future medical expenses to justify those fees, and failing to set up a trust for the client's children as ordered. The court had told him that to be reinstated he would need to make full restitution to his client's estate. In 2021 Roberson applied for readmission. The Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants held hearings and concluded he had not shown he was rehabilitated, had not fully appreciated the harm he caused, and had not made full restitution, since he kept about $800,000 in fees even after settling a malpractice claim against him for around $450,000. Roberson appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing the evidence showed he met all three requirements. The court disagreed and affirmed the Board's denial.

An applicant seeking readmission to the State Bar of Georgia must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is rehabilitated, appreciates the harm his conduct caused, and has met any court-imposed reinstatement conditions; because Roberson minimized his misconduct, blamed his co-counsel, and retained about $800,000 rather than making full restitution as ordered, he failed to meet this standard.

The decision reinforces that disbarred Georgia lawyers seeking readmission must fully own their misconduct, show real insight into the harm caused, and satisfy restitution conditions exactly as ordered, rather than offering partial explanations or shifting blame.

Affirmed

1. The court applied the rule that an applicant for reinstatement bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he has been sufficiently rehabilitated, including taking responsibility for past conduct, showing insight into why the conduct raised fitness concerns, and demonstrating candor.
2. The court found that although Roberson made general statements accepting blame, he repeatedly described his disbarment as merely a fee-calculation disagreement with his co-counsel and did not fully address his own dishonest conduct or the harm to his client and her children.
3. Because Roberson continued to give misleading or evasive answers even after being given detailed specifications of his past misconduct, the court treated this as evidence of a lack of candor rather than simple memory lapse, which further undercut his rehabilitation claim.
4. The court explained that positive evidence like letters of support and community service work was not enough by itself, because it was offset by his failure to show candor and genuine appreciation of the harm caused, and any doubt about rehabilitation must be resolved in favor of protecting the public.
5. On restitution, the court applied its earlier order requiring Roberson to repay 'all moneys he received' from his representation of the estate, and found that because he kept roughly $800,000 in fees after only settling a malpractice claim for about $450,000, he had not made full restitution as required.

• bar readmission
• attorney disbarment
• rehabilitation standard
• restitution condition
• legal malpractice