In the Matter of Andrew Thurston Murphy

Andrew Thurston Murphy, a Georgia lawyer, was representing a client charged with aggravated assault. While handling that case, Murphy sent a series of harassing and threatening emails to the superior court judge overseeing the case, the district attorney, an assistant district attorney, and other court staff. He was criminally charged and pleaded guilty in Cobb County Superior Court to 13 felony counts of terroristic threats and four felony counts of intimidating a court officer, receiving a 15-year sentence with 7 years to serve. Because a felony conviction can trigger bar discipline, the State Bar asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to appoint a Special Master to hold a hearing on whether Murphy should be disciplined. The Special Master found Murphy violated the rule against lawyers being convicted of felonies and recommended disbarment. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the record, agreed with that recommendation, and disbarred Murphy.

An attorney convicted of felony terroristic threats and intimidation of court officers for harassing a judge and prosecutors violates Rule 8.4(a)(2) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, and disbarment is the appropriate discipline given aggravating factors like dishonest motive and a pattern of misconduct outweighing the single mitigating factor of no prior discipline.

The decision removes a lawyer from practicing in Georgia after his crimes directly targeted the judges and prosecutors handling his client's case, reinforcing that attorneys who threaten court officials will lose their license, which protects the integrity of ongoing criminal proceedings and the safety of court personnel.

Disbarred

1. The court applied Rule 8.4(a)(2), which makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to be convicted of a felony, and found Murphy's guilty pleas to 13 counts of terroristic threats and four counts of intimidating a court officer satisfied this rule.
2. The court considered the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which set presumptive punishments for certain misconduct, and found disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer's serious criminal conduct intentionally interferes with the administration of justice or involves improperly communicating with someone in the legal system to influence a proceeding.
3. The court weighed aggravating factors (a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, substantial experience practicing law, and illegal conduct) against the single mitigating factor of no prior disciplinary record, and found the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigation.
4. The court compared Murphy's case to prior disbarment cases involving felony convictions tied to interference with the justice system, concluding that disbarment was consistent with how similar misconduct has been punished before.

• attorney disbarment
• terroristic threats
• felony conviction
• threats against judges
• State Bar discipline