In the Matter of David John Pettinato

David John Pettinato, a Georgia lawyer since 2014 who has also practiced in Florida since 1995, was disciplined by the Florida Supreme Court for two episodes of misconduct: helping present an appraiser as independent when the appraiser actually had ties to Pettinato's firm, and failing in a timely way to correct a client's false deposition testimony about a notarized document. Florida suspended him for ten days. Because Georgia lawyers who are disciplined elsewhere can ask the Supreme Court of Georgia to impose matching, or reciprocal, discipline here, Pettinato asked the court to suspend him for ten days as well, retroactive to when his Florida suspension began. The State Bar of Georgia agreed this was fair, noting he had not practiced law in Georgia since 2020, had no prior discipline, and had cooperated fully. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed and imposed the ten-day suspension retroactively, with reinstatement conditioned on his reinstatement in Florida.

The court held that a ten-day suspension, matching the discipline Florida imposed for the same misconduct, is appropriate reciprocal discipline under Georgia's rule requiring 'substantially similar discipline,' and that the suspension should run retroactively to the start of the Florida suspension because Pettinato had not practiced law in Georgia since 2020.

The decision shows how Georgia enforces reciprocal discipline when its lawyers are also barred elsewhere, ensuring misconduct punished in one state carries consequences in another. It reassures the public that lawyers cannot avoid accountability by relying on inactivity in Georgia while practicing under discipline in another state.

Petition for voluntary reciprocal discipline accepted; ten-day suspension imposed nunc pro tunc

1. Georgia's professional conduct rules allow reciprocal discipline, meaning a Georgia lawyer disciplined in another state can receive matching discipline here, under a rule (GRPC 9.4(b)) requiring 'substantially similar discipline' unless someone proves otherwise.
2. The court reviewed Pettinato's admitted facts from Florida's Consent Judgment, including that he assisted in presenting an appraiser as independent despite undisclosed ties to his firm, and that he did not promptly correct a client's false deposition testimony about a notarized proof of loss.
3. The court found these actions would violate Georgia's rules on candor toward courts and truthfulness to others (GRPC 3.3(a) and 4.1(b)), even though two Florida rules he violated have no direct Georgia equivalent.
4. Because neither the State Bar nor Pettinato objected to identical discipline, and mitigating factors like no prior discipline, no dishonest motive, and full cooperation were present, the court concluded a ten-day suspension matching Florida's was appropriate rather than a longer Georgia sanction.
5. The court also found that because Pettinato had stopped practicing law in Georgia since 2020 and the Bar supported backdating the suspension, it was appropriate to make the suspension retroactive to the start date of his Florida suspension, consistent with prior Georgia cases doing the same.

• attorney suspension
• reciprocal discipline
• Florida Bar
• candor to the court
• State Bar of Georgia