In the Matter of Jason Lee Van Dyke

Jason Lee Van Dyke, a Georgia lawyer, admitted he violated a professional conduct rule by being convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, meaning dishonesty or bad character, that relates to his fitness to practice law. After the State Bar of Georgia began disciplinary proceedings, Van Dyke tried twice before to propose his own punishment, but the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected his second proposal in 2021 because it wanted more facts, including details about a separate 12-month suspension the Texas Bar had imposed on him and questions about his conduct in his criminal case. Instead of waiting for that additional factfinding, Van Dyke filed a third petition proposing a suspension of up to 36 months backdated to March 2019. The State Bar asked the court to instead let the Special Master gather all the facts and address reciprocal discipline together in one report. The court agreed, rejected the third petition, and sent the matter back down again.

The court held that Van Dyke's proposed self-imposed discipline could not be accepted until the Special Master completes the additional factfinding previously ordered, including facts about his Texas Bar suspension and criminal proceeding conduct, and that any reciprocal discipline issues should be resolved in the same proceeding.

The case shows the Supreme Court of Georgia insisting on a full factual record before approving discipline for lawyers with troubling criminal or out-of-state disciplinary histories, which affects how quickly attorney misconduct cases get resolved and how much scrutiny courts give to self-proposed punishments.

Petition for voluntary discipline rejected; remanded to Special Master

1. The court recalled that it had previously rejected Van Dyke's second petition for voluntary discipline (a proposal by the attorney himself for what punishment he should receive) because key facts were missing, including details about a Texas Bar suspension and his conduct during his criminal case.
2. Because that prior remand for fact-finding had not yet been completed by the Special Master (the official appointed to investigate and recommend discipline), the court found it still lacked the information needed to judge an appropriate sanction.
3. Despite the outstanding remand, Van Dyke filed a new, third petition proposing a specific suspension length rather than waiting for the ordered factfinding to occur.
4. The State Bar asked the court to let the Special Master handle both the original disciplinary matter and Van Dyke's request for reciprocal discipline (discipline mirroring a sanction imposed by another state's bar) together in one report, and both the Special Master and Van Dyke agreed to this approach.
5. The court agreed with the State Bar's proposal, rejected the third petition, and sent the case back to the Special Master to complete the previously ordered factfinding along with resolving any reciprocal discipline issues.

• attorney discipline
• voluntary discipline petition
• reciprocal discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• moral turpitude conviction