In the Matter of Jason Lee Van Dyke

Jason Lee Van Dyke, a Texas lawyer also licensed in Georgia, was arrested after reporting a theft and later pleaded no contest to filing a false police report. That plea triggered a Georgia disciplinary case because a nolo contendere plea to a misdemeanor involving dishonesty counts as a conviction under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Van Dyke also faced separate suspensions from the Texas Bar for other misconduct, including making threats to gain advantage in a lawsuit and threatening someone he believed was harassing him. After rejecting three earlier voluntary discipline petitions and sending the case back twice for more fact-finding, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed a Special Master's report recommending a three-year suspension, matching the combined length of Van Dyke's Texas suspensions. The court accepted that recommendation, applied the suspension retroactively to the date Van Dyke stopped practicing in Georgia, and reinstated him immediately since the three years had already passed.

The court held that Van Dyke violated Rule 8.4(a)(3) by pleading nolo contendere to a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude related to his fitness to practice law, and that a three-year suspension, matching his combined Texas suspensions and applied retroactively to when he stopped practicing in Georgia, was the appropriate sanction.

The decision shows how Georgia handles lawyers disciplined in other states, treating out-of-state suspensions as a benchmark even without formally imposing reciprocal discipline, which affects how other multi-state lawyers might be sanctioned for misconduct that occurred elsewhere.

Three-year suspension imposed nunc pro tunc; reinstated

1. The court applied Georgia Rule 8.4(a)(3), which makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to be convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude connected to fitness to practice law, and found that a nolo contendere plea counts as a conviction under the rules.
2. Because Van Dyke's plea was to filing a false police report, a crime involving dishonesty, the court concluded this related to his fitness to practice law and satisfied the rule violation.
3. The court considered the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline, a framework that weighs the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, and aggravating and mitigating factors, to decide the appropriate punishment.
4. Aggravating factors included a pattern of misconduct showing disrespect for the law and years of legal experience, while mitigating factors included emotional distress from alleged harassment, completion of counseling, cooperation, remorse, and that the misconduct was personal rather than professional.
5. Although the Special Master had found reciprocal discipline in Georgia inappropriate for some of Van Dyke's Texas cases, he still used the combined length of Van Dyke's three Texas suspensions as a benchmark, and the court accepted this approach because reciprocal discipline generally requires only 'substantially similar' punishment.
6. The court capped the suspension at three years, the maximum period generally allowed under the ABA Standards before a suspended lawyer may seek reinstatement, and applied it retroactively to when Van Dyke actually stopped practicing law in Georgia.

• attorney suspension
• State Bar of Georgia
• nolo contendere plea
• reciprocal discipline
• Texas Bar sanctions