In the Matter of Craig S. Bonnell

A woman paid attorney Craig Bonnell $5,000 to help her become guardian and conservator for her ex-husband. Bonnell filed an emergency petition but never properly served it on the ex-husband, and after a judge dismissed the case over the botched service, Bonnell promised to refile but never did. He then stopped responding to the client, would not turn over her file, and never gave her a billing statement, leaving her ex-husband without a guardian despite a doctor's recommendation that one be appointed. Bonnell did not respond to the State Bar's disciplinary notice, so the facts were treated as admitted and he lost his right to a hearing. The Bar asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to impose only a public reprimand, the mildest sanction. The court found the Bar's request confused and unsupported, noting that similar abandonment cases had resulted in disbarment, and rejected the proposed discipline outright.

The court held that it need not accept the Bar's recommended sanction even when an attorney is in default, and rejected the Notice of Discipline because the Bar's filing miscounted the rule violations, failed to explain prior discipline, and cited no authority supporting a public reprimand for conduct resembling cases that resulted in disbarment.

The ruling signals that the Supreme Court of Georgia will not rubber-stamp lenient discipline recommendations from the State Bar when the record suggests more serious misconduct, protecting clients who rely on attorneys in sensitive matters like guardianship and giving the Bar guidance on properly justifying sanctions in future filings.

Notice of Discipline rejected

1. Because Bonnell failed to file a Notice of Rejection to the State Bar's Notice of Discipline, he was in default, meaning the facts alleged against him were treated as true and he gave up his right to a hearing.
2. The court explained that under Bar Rule 4-208.1, it is not required to accept the Bar's recommended sanction for a defaulting attorney and may instead reject the Notice of Discipline if the record does not support the proposed level of discipline.
3. The court found the Bar's filing miscounted the violations, since it claimed only one rule carried a maximum sanction of disbarment when actually two of the four violated rules (Rule 1.1, covering competent representation, and Rule 1.15, covering handling of client funds) could support disbarment.
4. The court noted the Bar gave no details about Bonnell's prior 2017 discipline, a Letter of Admonition, making it impossible to judge how much that prior misconduct should weigh against him now, and left unclear whether the client was owed restitution.
5. Comparing this case to prior cases involving abandonment of a single client, failure to respond in disciplinary proceedings, and one prior discipline, the court found the Bar cited no authority explaining why a public reprimand rather than a harsher sanction like disbarment was appropriate here.

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