In THE MATTER OF JOHN L.G. HERBERT, JR. (Four Cases)

John L. G. Herbert, Jr. was a Georgia lawyer whom eleven overseas investors and their companies trusted to receive, hold, and disburse money tied to their U.S. real estate investments. Around November 2022, Herbert stopped responding to their requests for information and accountings, and the investors collectively reported losing roughly $850,000 that had been entrusted to him and that he converted to his own use. The State Bar of Georgia brought disciplinary charges, called Notices of Discipline, accusing Herbert of violating numerous rules covering client communication, fees, handling of trust accounts, and honesty. Because Herbert never filed a formal response, he was automatically found in default under Bar rules, meaning the facts against him were treated as true and he gave up his right to a hearing. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the record and decided disbarment was the appropriate punishment.

The court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an attorney who defaulted on disciplinary charges involving abandonment of clients, misuse of trust account funds, and conversion of nearly $850,000 entrusted to him by overseas investors, consistent with prior similar disbarment cases.

The decision removes a lawyer from practice who took client and investor money for himself, protecting future clients from similar harm. It also reinforces that Georgia lawyers who ignore trust account rules and disciplinary proceedings face disbarment, and requires Herbert to repay victims before ever seeking reinstatement.

Disbarred, with restitution required for reinstatement

1. Because Herbert failed to file a Notice of Rejection responding to the State Bar's charges, he was automatically found in default under Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b), meaning the facts alleged against him were deemed admitted and he waived his right to a hearing.
2. The court reviewed the admitted facts showing Herbert violated multiple Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules requiring lawyers to keep client funds separate in trust accounts and to communicate with and account to clients, some of which carry disbarment as the maximum penalty on their own.
3. The court weighed aggravating factors, including a dishonest and selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct affecting multiple grievants, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and the vulnerability of overseas victims who could not easily confront him, against the single mitigating factor of his lack of prior discipline, and found the aggravating factors far outweighed it.
4. The court compared this case to prior disbarment cases involving attorneys who defaulted on discipline notices after abandoning clients and violating trust account rules, finding disbarment consistent with how the court has handled similar misconduct.
5. Based on this reasoning, the court adopted the Bar's recommended sanction of disbarment and required Herbert, if he ever seeks reinstatement, to first repay the grievants the amounts of their losses.

• attorney disbarment
• trust account violations
• client fund misappropriation
• State Bar of Georgia
• default discipline