In the Matter of Sharon L. Barksdale

A woman hired attorney Sharon Barksdale to defend her against her child's father's attempt to change custody. After a 2019 hearing that mostly favored the client, the judge told Barksdale to draft a formal order, but she never did, and she also never told her client about the delay. Months later the father asked the court to change the arrangement, and because his lawyer sent notice to the wrong address, Barksdale never learned about the new hearing and did not attend. The resulting July 2020 order was significantly worse for the client, moving the child to live with the father in Virginia. Barksdale admitted she violated the rules requiring diligence and client communication, and filed a petition asking the State Bar and the Supreme Court of Georgia to accept discipline. A special master found her conduct was negligent, not intentional, and recommended a public reprimand. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed and imposed that reprimand.

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that Barksdale's admitted failures to promptly prepare a court-ordered document and keep her client informed violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, and that because her conduct was negligent rather than intentional and mitigating factors were strong, a public reprimand rather than a harsher sanction was the appropriate discipline.

The case shows how a missed deadline and poor communication by a family-law attorney can directly change a child's custody outcome, and it signals to Georgia lawyers that similar lapses in diligence and client updates can bring public discipline even without dishonesty or intent to harm.

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted; public reprimand imposed

1. The court applied the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which direct consideration of the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the injury caused, and any aggravating or mitigating factors.
2. The court found Barksdale violated Rule 1.3 (the duty to act with reasonable diligence, meaning a lawyer must not abandon or disregard a client's matter without cause) by failing to submit a court-ordered proposed custody order and failing to challenge a later unfavorable order.
3. The court found Barksdale violated Rule 1.4 (the duty to keep a client reasonably informed) by not telling her client about the missed order, the unanswered court email, and the hearing she was unaware of because of a service error by the other side's attorney.
4. Because the Special Master concluded Barksdale's lapses stemmed from being overwhelmed by her caseload rather than from intentional wrongdoing, the presumptive penalty under ABA Standard 4.43 for negligent, injury-causing conduct was a reprimand rather than a harsher sanction like suspension or disbarment.
5. The court weighed aggravating factors, Barksdale's substantial legal experience and the client's vulnerability, against mitigating factors including no prior discipline, sincere remorse, and changes she made to her practice, and found the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating ones.
6. The court also considered whether restitution was appropriate but agreed with the Special Master that no meaningful restitution was available because the fees were paid by a legal service, not the client, and no payment could undo the custody order's effects.

• attorney discipline
• public reprimand
• child custody modification
• State Bar of Georgia
• lawyer negligence