In THE MATTER OF JAMES HOWARD SINNOTT (Two Cases)

James Sinnott, a Georgia lawyer admitted to the bar since 1999, was convicted in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and multiple counts of filing or subscribing false tax returns. Because a felony conviction violates the rules that govern Georgia lawyers, a special master held a hearing to decide what discipline Sinnott should face while his appeal of that conviction is still pending. The special master recommended that Sinnott be suspended from practicing law until his direct appeal is resolved, rather than being disbarred outright at this stage. Neither Sinnott nor the State Bar objected to that recommendation. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed and ordered the suspension, also dismissing as unnecessary a separate petition Sinnott had filed on his own seeking the same outcome.

A lawyer convicted of a felony violates Georgia's rules of professional conduct, and when a direct appeal of that conviction is still pending, the appropriate discipline is suspension from practicing law until the appeal is resolved, rather than immediate disbarment.

Sinnott cannot practice law in Georgia while his federal appeal is pending, which affects his clients and law practice. The ruling also confirms how Georgia handles lawyers convicted of serious crimes: suspension pending appeal, with disbarment still possible depending on the appeal's outcome.

Interim suspension imposed; related petition dismissed as moot

1. Georgia's professional conduct rules make it a violation, specifically Rule 8.4(a)(2), for a lawyer to be convicted of a felony, and the maximum penalty for that violation is disbarment.
2. Because Sinnott's federal convictions for conspiracy and false tax filings are felonies, and his direct appeal of those convictions remains pending, a special master held a hearing to recommend appropriate discipline rather than assuming the convictions are final.
3. The special master recommended suspension until the appeal is resolved, following the court's past practice in similar cases of imposing suspension rather than final discipline while a criminal appeal is still ongoing.
4. Because neither Sinnott nor the State Bar objected to that recommendation, and the court's review of the record supported it, the court adopted the suspension as the appropriate discipline for now.
5. Since Sinnott's separate petition asked for the same suspension the special master already recommended, that petition became unnecessary once the court ordered the suspension, so the court dismissed it as moot.

• attorney suspension
• felony conviction
• tax fraud
• wire fraud conspiracy
• State Bar discipline