In the Matter of Willie George Davis, Jr

Davis drafted a will for his sister naming himself executor, guardian, and conservator without bond, then failed to properly account for over $157,000 in life insurance proceeds meant for his nephew, who was only 13 when his mother died. After the nephew turned 18 and sought an accounting, Davis stonewalled the probate court for years, was jailed for contempt, and ultimately a probate court judgment found he owed his nephew nearly $200,000. This was the third time the case reached the Supreme Court of Georgia. Earlier, the Court had rejected a lighter suspension recommendation as impractical. This time, after the State Bar won partial summary judgment on multiple rule violations, a Special Master and the State Disciplinary Review Board recommended disbarment. The Court agreed, rejecting Davis's exceptions and ordering him disbarred, with reinstatement conditioned on repaying the probate judgment and proving his mental fitness to practice law.

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that disbarment, rather than suspension, is the appropriate sanction where an attorney violated multiple trust accounting and conflict-of-interest rules, intentionally withheld information from a probate court, and caused serious financial harm to a vulnerable nephew without making restitution.

The ruling removes Davis from the practice of law in Georgia and signals to lawyers who serve as fiduciaries for family members that mishandling trust funds and defying court orders can lead to disbarment, not just suspension, especially when a vulnerable dependent is harmed.

Disbarred, with conditions for reinstatement

1. The court applied the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a framework that weighs the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the harm caused, and aggravating or mitigating factors, to determine the appropriate discipline.
2. The court found Davis violated multiple duties, including failing to preserve his nephew's property, failing to get informed consent for a conflict of interest in drafting his sister's will naming himself executor, and misleading his nephew's attorney and the probate court.
3. The court credited the Special Master's finding that while some of Davis's conduct stemmed from grief and depression, a significant portion was knowing and intentional, aimed at avoiding accountability for misused funds, which distinguished this case from prior cases involving mere oversight.
4. The court weighed five aggravating factors (including a vulnerable victim orphaned at 13 and prior discipline) against three mitigating factors (including family deaths and untreated depression) and found the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating ones.
5. The court distinguished cases Davis cited involving lesser sanctions, noting those cases involved no harm to clients or timely good-faith restitution efforts, neither of which was present here, since Davis caused serious harm and never made restitution.
6. Because the presumptive penalty for most of the violated rules is disbarment and the mitigating evidence did not overcome the aggravating factors, the court concluded disbarment with reinstatement conditions was warranted.

• attorney disbarment
• estate mishandling
• conservatorship funds
• probate court contempt
• State Bar discipline