In the Matter of Natalie Spires Paine

Natalie Spires Paine was the district attorney and lead prosecutor in a double-murder case in Augusta. Investigators recorded two defendants meeting privately with their lawyers in a sheriff's office interview room, and Paine later burned those recordings onto CDs and distributed them to the parties without realizing the private attorney-client conversations were included. The State Bar accused her of improperly obtaining evidence and lying about what she knew. A special master held a hearing, found Paine did not know the privileged conversations had been recorded, and recommended no discipline. A State Disciplinary Review Board disagreed and said Paine should be suspended for six months. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and concluded the Review Board wrongly brushed aside the special master's fact-findings, which were not clearly wrong. The court restored the special master's conclusion that no discipline was warranted.

The court held that the Review Board failed to properly apply the clearly-erroneous standard when it rejected the special master's factual findings, and that under the correct deferential standard, the Bar did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Paine violated the rules on obtaining evidence improperly or making false statements.

The ruling clarifies how much deference disciplinary review boards must give to a special master's fact-findings in State Bar cases, protecting attorneys from having credibility findings overturned without a clearly-erroneous showing, and it resolves without sanction a high-profile case involving recorded attorney-client meetings in a murder prosecution.

No discipline imposed; case dismissed

1. The court explained that under Bar Rule 4-216(a), a special master's fact-findings and credibility calls made after a hearing can only be overturned if they are clearly erroneous, meaning plainly wrong given the record, while legal conclusions are reviewed fresh (de novo).
2. The court found the Review Board ignored key findings, such as that Paine mistakenly believed the audio in the interview rooms could be turned off and did not know the CDs she distributed contained the private attorney-client recordings.
3. The court noted the Review Board wrongly treated the mere existence of some supporting evidence as enough to overturn the special master's findings, when the real question is whether the special master's specific findings and credibility choices were clearly wrong, which they were not here.
4. Applying the correct deferential standard itself, the court agreed with the special master that the Bar had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Paine used improperly obtained evidence or made knowingly false statements in her disciplinary responses.
5. Because the special master's findings were reasonable and supported by testimony from Paine, the lead investigator, and defense counsel, the court rejected both the Review Board's six-month suspension recommendation and the Bar's request for a public reprimand.

• attorney discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• attorney-client privilege
• recorded jail interviews
• prosecutorial conduct