--- title: In the Matter of Stephen Anthony Power collection: opinions id: S22Y0536 cite_as: In the Matter of Stephen Anthony Power, 314 Ga. 504 (2022) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0536 md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0536.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0536/text source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10679827/in-the-matter-of-stephen-anthony-power/ date: 2022-08-23 status: published corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-14 license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice. up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2022.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S19Z1369.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0943/10679828.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md omitted: opinion extras omitted_chars: 1760 omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0536.md?full=1 docket: S22Y0536 citation: 314 Ga. 504 court: Supreme Court of Georgia case_type: bar discipline authoring_justice: Per Curiam disposition: Disbarred vote: All the Justices concur word_count: 878 date_filed_source: courtlistener citations: - 877 S.E.2d 601 record_source: courtlistener legal_areas: - professional discipline - legal ethics upstream_id: "10679827" summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5 --- # In the Matter of Stephen Anthony Power Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S22Y0536, filed 2022-08-23, 314 Ga. 504. ## Opinion 314 Ga. 504 FINAL COPY S22Y0536. IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN ANTHONY POWER. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of Discipline (“Notice”), recommending the disbarment of Stephen Anthony Power1 (State Bar No. 600565) in connection with three matters set out in State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) Nos. 7532, 7533, and 7534. After the State Bar requested that Power acknowledge service of the Notice and he failed to respond, the State Bar made several attempts to personally serve Power at the address on record with the State Bar, but was unable to perfect personal service. The State Bar then properly served Power by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii), but Power failed to file a Notice of Rejection. Therefore, he is in default, has waived his right 1 Power was admitted to the State Bar in 2009 and was administratively suspended on July 2, 2021, for nonpayment of license fees. Power is also deficient in Continuing Legal Education credits. to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). The facts, as deemed admitted by Power’s default, are as follows: In connection with SDBD No. 7532, in May 2018, a client retained Power to represent him in a divorce proceeding and paid Power $1,258. However, Power never performed any legal services in the matter, failed to respond to his client’s requests for information, failed to respond when his client terminated the representation in October 2019, and failed to refund the fee. In connection with SDBD No. 7533, in July 2019, a client retained Power to represent him in a child custody modification action. After the client’s former spouse declined to consent to modification, Power advised his client to file a contested petition for modification. Power’s client executed a legal services contract for the representation and paid Power a $3,000 flat fee. Power performed some work on the matter in the fall of 2019. However, after Power had his client sign a verification form on November 9, 2019, to accompany the petition and indicated that the petition would be filed, Power never filed the petition. Power also failed to communicate with his client again or respond to any of his client’s repeated communications seeking information about the status of the matter. In connection with SDBD No. 7534, in April 2020, the State Bar received notification that Power’s trust account was overdrawn by $1,500, and in May 2020, the State Bar received notification of an additional overdraft of $3,000. Power did not respond to any of the State Bar’s inquiries about the overdrafts. In connection with each of the above matters, Power failed to acknowledge service of the Notices of Investigation. Additionally, Power failed to file sworn, written responses to the Notices as required by Bar Rule 4-204.3 after Power was served by publication when personal service could not be completed. Based on these facts, the State Disciplinary Board found probable cause to believe that Power violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (a), 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.15 (III), 1.16 (d), and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), and 1.15 (III) is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, and 9.3 is a public reprimand. The Board considered as aggravating factors Power’s 12 years of practice, his “repetitive pattern of misconduct” in the above matters, and his intentional failure to comply with Bar Rules as demonstrated by his failure to respond to the State Bar and his clients and his failure to keep his contact information with the State Bar up to date; the Board considered as a mitigating factor Power’s lack of a prior disciplinary history. See American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Sanctions 9.32 (c), (i) and 9.33 (a); In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996) (stating that this Court looks to the ABA Standards for guidance in determining appropriate disciplinary sanction). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter and is consistent with similar cases in which a lawyer abandons clients, violates the rules related to trust accounts, and defaults during the disciplinary process. See, e.g., In the Matter of Proctor, 313 Ga. 637 (872 SE2d 691) (2022) (disbarring attorney who defaulted under notice of discipline for abandonment of three clients and violations of trust account rules); In the Matter of Plumides, 311 Ga. 65 (855 SE2d 651) (2021) (disbarring attorney who defaulted under notice of discipline and who engaged in pattern of abandoning clients and violating trust account rules). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Stephen Anthony Power be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Power is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b). Disbarred. All the Justices concur. Decided August 23, 2022. Disbarment. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Wolanda R. Shelton, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. ## Summaries written by Georgia Commons The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary. The Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred attorney Stephen Anthony Power after he defaulted on disciplinary charges accusing him of abandoning clients, mishandling trust account funds, and ignoring the State Bar's investigation. ### Plain-language summary Stephen Anthony Power, a Georgia lawyer, faced three separate complaints filed with the State Bar. In one, a client paid him for a divorce case that he never worked on and never refunded. In another, a client paid a flat fee for a child custody case, and Power stopped communicating and never filed the petition he had told his client he would file. In the third matter, his law firm trust account was overdrawn twice, and he never responded to the State Bar's questions about it. When the State Bar tried to serve Power with formal notice of the charges, he could not be found and eventually had to be served by publication (a legal notice printed publicly). He still never responded, putting him in default and giving up his right to a hearing. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the undisputed facts and decided that disbarment, the most serious punishment available, was the right outcome given his pattern of abandoning clients and his failure to participate in the process at all. ### Holding, as summarized The court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for a lawyer who abandoned multiple clients, failed to refund unearned fees, overdrew his trust account twice without explanation, and defaulted by failing to respond at every stage of the disciplinary process. ### Disposition Disbarred. All the Justices concur. ### Why it matters Clients across Georgia rely on lawyers to handle their money and their legal matters honestly. This case shows how the State Bar and the Supreme Court of Georgia respond when a lawyer abandons clients, mishandles trust funds, and refuses to cooperate: with removal from the practice of law. > The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (1,760 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0536.md?full=1