In the Matter of Jonathan Reuven Melnick

Jonathan Melnick represented a mother in a child support and visitation dispute with her child's father. After a mediation resolved some issues, the father's attorney filed a motion to enforce the settlement when Melnick refused to have his client repay overpaid child support. Melnick never told his client about the motion, never told her about the resulting court hearing (which he skipped due to a scheduling conflict), and never told her about the judge's final order requiring her to pay nearly $3,630. She only found out when her child support payments dropped and she checked with the courthouse herself. A Special Master recommended a suspension of three to six months, but a State Bar review board later recommended only a public reprimand, citing the age of Melnick's prior discipline. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed with the review board, agreeing with the Special Master that Melnick's conduct was willful, not merely careless, and that his history of similar violations justified a suspension rather than a reprimand.

The court held that Melnick willfully violated the rules requiring diligence and client communication by failing to inform his client of a motion, a hearing, and a resulting adverse order, and that given his willful conduct, resulting harm, and three prior disciplinary sanctions for similar misconduct, a six-month suspension rather than a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction.

The decision reinforces that Georgia lawyers who keep clients in the dark about motions, hearings, and court orders affecting their legal rights face real suspension, not just a warning, especially when they have a history of similar client-communication failures.

Six-month suspension imposed

1. The court applies Georgia's professional conduct rules requiring diligence (Rule 1.3) and client communication (Rule 1.4), finding Melnick willfully failed to notify his client about a motion to enforce a settlement, a hearing on that motion, and the resulting order requiring her to pay nearly $3,630.
2. The court reviews de novo whether the established facts count as mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a framework courts use to weigh factors that increase or decrease punishment, while deferring to the Special Master's underlying factual findings unless clearly wrong.
3. The court accepts some mitigation, giving weight to Melnick's personal and emotional difficulties and the fact that he had avoided discipline for over a decade, but rejects his claim that repaying his client should count in his favor because he only paid her after she hired a lawyer and filed a Bar complaint, not out of an early good-faith effort.
4. The court finds Melnick's substantial legal experience and lack of remorse, shown by blaming his client and minimizing her harm, count against him in aggravation, along with his three prior disciplinary sanctions for similar conduct, though it gives those older sanctions reduced weight because of their age.
5. Weighing willful misconduct, resulting harm to the client, and a history of similar violations against the mitigating factors, the court concludes the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating ones, so a suspension rather than a mere reprimand is warranted under Bar Rule 4-103, which allows suspension or disbarment after a third disciplinary infraction.

• attorney suspension
• State Bar of Georgia
• client communication
• child support dispute
• law practice management