In the Matter of Candice Valerie Blain

Candice Valerie Blain, a Georgia lawyer admitted to the Bar in 2006, was hired to represent a plaintiff in a Fulton County civil case filed in 2016. When the court tried to reach her about scheduling trial, emails to her listed addresses bounced back and a mailed letter was returned undeliverable. Neither Blain nor her client showed up when the case was called for trial, and the opposing lawyer said he had never heard from her. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. The State Bar tried to serve Blain with formal disciplinary papers but could not find her at her registered address, so it served her by publication. Blain never responded, putting her in default and waiving her right to a hearing. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the admitted facts, found she violated several rules of professional conduct, and ordered her disbarred.

An attorney who abandons a client's case, causing it to be dismissed, and who fails to respond to State Bar disciplinary proceedings resulting in default, is subject to disbarment because the underlying misconduct (failing to pursue the client's objectives and act with diligence) each independently permits disbarment as a maximum sanction.

The case shows how completely abandoning a client, including failing to communicate and missing trial, combined with ignoring State Bar investigations, leads directly to disbarment. It protects clients who rely on lawyers to show up and communicate, and reinforces that ignoring disciplinary proceedings does not avoid punishment.

Disbarred

1. Because Blain failed to file a Notice of Rejection after being properly served by publication, she was in default, meaning the facts alleged against her were deemed admitted and she waived her right to an evidentiary hearing.
2. Based on the admitted facts, the State Disciplinary Board found Blain violated Rule 1.2(a) (failing to pursue the client's objectives), Rule 1.3 (lack of diligence), Rule 1.4 (failing to communicate), and Rule 3.2 (failing to expedite litigation), all part of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.
3. The court noted that violations of Rules 1.2(a) and 1.3 can carry a maximum sanction of disbarment, while violations of Rules 1.4 and 3.2 carry a maximum sanction of only a public reprimand, so the more serious rules controlled the potential sanction.
4. In weighing aggravating and mitigating factors under the ABA Standards for Imposing Sanctions, the court considered that Blain had no prior discipline but had significant legal experience and had intentionally failed to comply with Bar rules during the disciplinary process, which counted against her.
5. The court compared this case to prior disbarment decisions involving attorneys who abandoned clients and defaulted in disciplinary proceedings, concluding that disbarment was consistent with how similar misconduct had been treated before.

• attorney disbarment
• client abandonment
• State Bar of Georgia
• default in disciplinary proceedings