In the Matter of Herald J.A. Alexander

A longtime Georgia attorney, Herald J.A. Alexander, was accused by the State Bar of improperly borrowing $200,000 from a longtime client and failing to pay it back. When Alexander tried to respond to the formal complaint, he filed his answer on time but mistakenly submitted it through the Supreme Court of Georgia's filing system instead of the State Bar's system, because the case caption listed a Supreme Court case number. He corrected the mistake the next day, but a Special Master later found him in default anyway and, after a hearing on punishment, recommended disbarment. A Review Board agreed. Alexander appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing the default was unfair since he had tried to file on time and stayed engaged in the process. The court agreed with him, finding the Special Master abused his discretion by treating a late but good-faith filing the same as a total failure to respond. The court sent the case back for a full hearing on the actual misconduct allegations.

The court held that a lawyer who timely filed his answer, albeit on the wrong court's docket, and who continued to participate in the proceedings was not automatically in default, and that the Special Master abused his discretion by granting default instead of proceeding to a merits hearing.

The ruling reinforces that Georgia's attorney discipline system favors deciding cases on their merits rather than through technical defaults, protecting lawyers who make good-faith filing mistakes while still participating in proceedings, and it delays resolution of serious misconduct allegations against this attorney.

Vacated default order and report; remanded with direction for a hearing on the merits

1. The court explained that Georgia's disciplinary rules (Bar Rule 4-212(a)) do not make a case automatically go into default just because an answer is filed late, unlike Georgia's general civil default statute (O.C.G.A. § 9-11-55(a)), so the Special Master had discretion whether to grant default rather than being forced to.
2. Because that decision was discretionary, the court reviewed it for abuse of discretion, a standard asking whether the Special Master's choice fell outside the range of reasonable options given the facts.
3. The court noted its stated preference in disciplinary cases for deciding matters on their merits rather than by default, especially when the record shows the attorney tried to cooperate and participate rather than ignoring the proceedings entirely.
4. Applying that preference here, the court found Alexander had filed his answer on time, just on the wrong docket due to the case caption listing a Supreme Court case number, then promptly corrected the error and continued engaging with the process, unlike typical default cases involving total non-response.
5. The court concluded that treating this good-faith mistake as a full default did not serve the purpose of protecting the public from lawyers evading discipline, so granting the State Bar's motion for default was an abuse of discretion under these particular circumstances.

• attorney discipline
• default judgment
• State Bar of Georgia
• disbarment recommendation
• filing error