In the Matter of Coulter Clauzell Henry, Jr

An attorney told a client on February 7, 2018 that he had filed the client's patent application, but he did not actually file it until more than three months later, on May 29, 2018. The attorney said he was under intense personal stress at the time due to his divorce and had also suffered health problems, including high blood pressure and a stroke. The State Bar filed a formal complaint, and the attorney admitted his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct's ban on dishonest or deceitful conduct, which can be punished by disbarment. He asked for a public reprimand instead, citing his lack of prior discipline, remorse, cooperation, and personal hardships. A special master and the State Bar agreed a public reprimand was appropriate as long as he refunded the client's $2,500 fee, which he later did. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed and imposed the public reprimand.

The court held that a public reprimand, rather than a harsher sanction like suspension or disbarment, was the appropriate discipline for the attorney's admitted dishonest statement to his client, given multiple mitigating factors and no aggravating factors, and conditioned on his refunding the client's fee.

The decision shows that Georgia attorneys who deceive clients can face serious discipline up to disbarment, but that personal hardship, remorse, restitution, and cooperation can lead the state's highest court to choose a lighter public reprimand instead.

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted; public reprimand imposed

1. The court looked to the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which Georgia courts use as guidance, to determine the appropriate discipline for the attorney's admitted violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4), the rule barring dishonest or deceitful professional conduct.
2. Although the relevant ABA standard generally calls for suspension when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client and causes injury, the court considered whether mitigating circumstances justified a lighter sanction.
3. The Special Master and the State Bar found several mitigating factors present, including the attorney's lack of prior discipline, his personal and emotional problems from his divorce and health issues, his effort to fix the problem by later filing the application, his remorse, and his cooperation, and found no aggravating factors.
4. The court compared this case to prior Georgia disciplinary cases where attorneys who violated the same dishonesty rule received public reprimands or review panel reprimands rather than suspension or disbarment, given similar mitigating circumstances.
5. Because the attorney fully refunded the $2,500 fee to his former client as required, and given the mitigating factors and precedent, the court agreed that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction rather than a harsher penalty.

• attorney discipline
• public reprimand
• State Bar of Georgia
• patent application
• dishonest conduct