In THE MATTER OF R. DALE PERRY (Three Cases)

R. Dale Perry, a Georgia lawyer since 1981, was hired by three different clients to handle divorce cases. In each case, he stopped communicating with his clients, failed to respond to discovery requests and motions filed against them, and did not properly withdraw or return files and unearned fees when clients fired him. One client had to get an arbitration award before Perry refunded a $6,000 retainer. When the State Bar filed formal disciplinary complaints, Perry did not respond in time, so a Special Master found him in default and recommended disbarment based on violations of several Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Perry never properly sought review of that recommendation. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the record and agreed that disbarment, the most serious sanction available, was warranted given the pattern of client abandonment and Perry's prior disciplinary history. One Justice dissented, favoring a lesser sanction and highlighting possible health struggles.

The court held that Perry's default admissions, showing repeated client abandonment, failure to communicate, mishandling of client funds, and failure to expedite litigation across three divorce matters, combined with his prior disciplinary history, warranted disbarment as the appropriate sanction.

Georgians who hire attorneys can be reassured that lawyers who abandon clients and ignore Bar discipline face the harshest sanction, disbarment. The case also signals to attorneys facing stress or health struggles that they must timely engage with disciplinary proceedings or risk losing their license.

Disbarred

1. The court applied Bar Rule 4-212(a), under which a lawyer who fails to answer a formal disciplinary complaint is deemed to have admitted the factual allegations and rule violations charged against him.
2. Because Perry did not timely file exceptions or seek review of the Special Master's report, and his later 'response' missed the 30-day deadline under Bar Rule 4-218, the court declined to consider his late mitigating information.
3. The court applied the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a framework used to weigh the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the injury caused, and aggravating and mitigating factors, in setting an appropriate sanction.
4. Applying that framework, the court found Perry violated his duty of diligence and his duty to expedite litigation in all three client matters, showing a pattern of neglect and abandonment that caused actual or potential serious injury to his clients.
5. The court weighed aggravating factors, including Perry's substantial legal experience, pattern of misconduct, lack of acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and prior disciplinary history, against limited mitigating factors, since his restitution came only after an arbitration award compelled it.
6. Comparing Perry's case to prior disbarment decisions involving attorneys who defaulted after abandoning clients on similar rule violations, the court concluded disbarment was consistent with its precedent.

• attorney disbarment
• client abandonment
• State Bar of Georgia
• divorce representation
• legal ethics