In THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY ORMAN MCCALEP (Two Cases)

Several clients hired Timothy Orman McCalep, a Georgia lawyer since 2003, to handle criminal defense, divorce, and personal injury matters. Many paid substantial retainers but then could rarely reach McCalep himself, instead dealing with a paralegal and, in one case, the paralegal's husband who was not a lawyer. Clients say McCalep missed court dates, failed to file basic paperwork, misrepresented who was working on their cases, and refused refunds even after being fired. The State Bar of Georgia brought two disciplinary matters: a notice of discipline covering one client, and a formal complaint covering eight grievances from five other cases. McCalep did not respond to either proceeding, so the facts alleged were treated as admitted. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed both records and had to decide the appropriate punishment for this pattern of misconduct. The court concluded that disbarment was warranted, citing serious harm to clients, McCalep's prior disciplinary history including a three-year suspension, and his refusal to participate in these proceedings.

The court held that disbarment was the appropriate sanction because McCalep knowingly and repeatedly violated multiple rules of professional conduct, abandoned numerous clients, mishandled or kept their funds, allowed non-lawyer staff to mismanage cases, and showed no willingness to participate in the disciplinary process.

The ruling permanently removes McCalep from practicing law in Georgia, protecting future clients from similar harm. It also signals to other attorneys that failing to supervise staff, abandoning clients, and ignoring disciplinary proceedings can result in the harshest possible sanction.

Disbarred

1. Because McCalep failed to respond to the notice of discipline and to the formal complaint, he was in default, meaning the facts alleged by the State Bar were automatically treated as true (deemed admitted) for purposes of discipline.
2. The court and Special Master applied the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a framework that looks at the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the harm caused, and any aggravating or mitigating factors, to decide the presumptive punishment for each violation.
3. Applying that framework, the court found McCalep knowingly abandoned clients, mishandled client funds, and let non-lawyer staff mismanage cases, each of which under the ABA Standards independently points toward disbarment as the presumptive sanction.
4. The court identified multiple aggravating factors, including a prior three-year suspension for a serious ethics violation, a pattern of misconduct across many clients, dishonest motives, vulnerable incarcerated clients, and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, with no mitigating factors found.
5. Because the court found strong evidence of severe violations of other rules already justified disbarment, it declined to rely on two more uncertain rule violations (Rules 5.5 and 8.4(a)(1)) concerning supervision of non-lawyers, since resolving those questions was unnecessary to the outcome.
6. Consistent with how the court has treated similar past cases of client abandonment and default, the court concluded disbarment was the appropriate and consistent sanction here.

• attorney disbarment
• client abandonment
• State Bar of Georgia
• retainer fees
• legal malpractice