--- title: In the Matter of Candice Valerie Blain collection: opinions id: S22Y0661 cite_as: In the Matter of Candice Valerie Blain, 315 Ga. 475 (2023) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0661 md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0661.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0661/text source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10680184/in-the-matter-of-candice-valerie-blain/ date: 2023-01-18 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/2023.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23Y0306.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23Y0155.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md omitted: opinion extras omitted_chars: 1765 omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0661.md?full=1 docket: S22Y0661 citation: 315 Ga. 475 court: Supreme Court of Georgia case_type: bar discipline authoring_justice: Per Curiam disposition: Disbarred vote: All the Justices concur word_count: 1078 date_filed_source: courtlistener citations: - 883 S.E.2d 315 record_source: courtlistener legal_areas: - professional discipline - legal ethics upstream_id: "10680184" summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5 --- # In the Matter of Candice Valerie Blain Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S22Y0661, filed 2023-01-18, 315 Ga. 475. ## Opinion 315 Ga. 475 FINAL COPY S22Y0661. IN THE MATTER OF CANDICE VALERIE BLAIN. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of Discipline seeking the disbarment of respondent Candice Valerie Blain (State Bar No. 788082) based on her abandonment of a client. Blain is currently suspended pursuant to an interim order entered by this Court after she failed to provide an adequate response to the notice of investigation underlying this matter. See In the Matter of Blain, Case No. S22Y0064 (Aug. 16, 2021). For the reasons set forth below, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. The State Bar attempted to serve Blain personally with the Notice of Discipline at the address listed with the State Bar, but the record shows that its staff investigator, who was authorized to perfect service, was unable to locate Blain at the listed address. See Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (i).1 The State Bar then properly served Blain by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). Blain failed to file a Notice of Rejection as required by Bar Rule 4-208.3, and therefore, she is in default, has waived her right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline and further 1 The return-of-service form used by the Bar in this matter provides four paragraphs for the investigator to indicate with a check mark, as applicable. The first paragraph is an entry of service with a blank provided for the “Date and Time of Service.” The fourth paragraph, which provides for entry of service non est inventus, states: “I attempted to serve the Respondent with the Service Documents by hand delivery at the Registered Address, but the Respondent was not to be found at the Registered Address.” Here, the investigator checked the fourth paragraph and explained in a note that he was unable to locate Blain’s name at the callbox of her registered address, which was inside a gated community. Thus, he could not enter the subdivision to attempt personal service at the registered address, and he issued a non est inventus. The Latin term, sometimes shortened to “non est” or abbreviated as “n.e.i.,” means “he is not found,” and is used to indicate that the person in question could not be found within the jurisdiction. See “Non est inventus,” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The Bar subsequently provided an affidavit from the investigator, which averred that the investigator attempted to locate Blain at the address that she provided to the Bar, but was not able to find her name at the callbox or gain access to the gated community. The investigator also averred that he was unable to call or text Blain because Blain has not provided a telephone number to the Bar. Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (i) provides, in pertinent part, that “[r]eceipt of a Return of Service Non Est Inventus shall constitute conclusive proof that service cannot be perfected by personal service.” proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4- 208.1 (b). The facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Blain’s default, are as follows. Blain, who was admitted to the Bar in 2006, was retained to represent a plaintiff in a civil suit in Fulton County State Court. The case was filed in 2016, and on December 20, 2019, the trial court’s staff attorney e-mailed the attorneys and requested a trial announcement. To contact Blain, the staff attorney used the e-mail address provided as a service contact in the court’s electronic filing system as well as another e-mail address listed on Blain’s law firm’s website. The e-mails sent to both addresses were returned as undeliverable. On December 23, 2019, the staff attorney sent the defendant’s lawyer an e-mail setting a trial date in January 2020, and mailed a copy of that e-mail to Blain at the address listed on the State Bar of Georgia’s website. The letter mailed to Blain was returned as undeliverable and unable to be forwarded. When the case was called for trial, neither Blain nor her client appeared. The defendant’s lawyer, who had entered an appearance in June 2019, informed the court that he had never heard from Blain and that Blain did not respond to his attempts to schedule the court-ordered mediation. The trial court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Based on these facts, the State Disciplinary Board found, and we agree, that Blain violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2 (a) and 1.3 is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, and 3.2 is a public reprimand. In addressing mitigating and aggravating factors, the Board considered that while Blain had no prior disciplinary history, she has experience in the practice of law and that the record shows her intentional failure to comply with Bar rules regarding the disciplinary process. See ABA Standards for Imposing Sanctions 9.32 (a) and 9.22 (e), (i); 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 an attorney has abandoned a client and failed to respond to the State Bar. See, e.g., In the Matter of McCrea, 314 Ga. 810 (879 SE2d 499) (2022) (disbarring attorney who abandoned a client and committed other violations of the GRPC and who was found in default in disciplinary proceedings); In the Matter of Powell, 310 Ga. 859 (854 SE2d 731) (2021) (disbarring attorney for abandoning single client and failing to respond to disciplinary authorities for over two years); In the Matter of Miller, 302 Ga. 366 (806 SE2d 596) (2017) (disbarring attorney who abandoned client and defaulted under a notice of discipline). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Candice Valerie Blain be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Blain is reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b). Disbarred. All the Justices concur. Decided January 18, 2023. 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 Candice Valerie Blain after she abandoned a client's civil case, causing it to be dismissed, and then failed to respond to State Bar disciplinary proceedings. ### Plain-language summary Candice Valerie Blain, a Georgia lawyer admitted to the Bar in 2006, was hired to represent a plaintiff in a Fulton County civil case filed in 2016. When the court tried to reach her about scheduling trial, emails to her listed addresses bounced back and a mailed letter was returned undeliverable. Neither Blain nor her client showed up when the case was called for trial, and the opposing lawyer said he had never heard from her. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. The State Bar tried to serve Blain with formal disciplinary papers but could not find her at her registered address, so it served her by publication. Blain never responded, putting her in default and waiving her right to a hearing. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the admitted facts, found she violated several rules of professional conduct, and ordered her disbarred. ### Holding, as summarized An attorney who abandons a client's case, causing it to be dismissed, and who fails to respond to State Bar disciplinary proceedings resulting in default, is subject to disbarment because the underlying misconduct (failing to pursue the client's objectives and act with diligence) each independently permits disbarment as a maximum sanction. ### Disposition Disbarred. All the Justices concur. ### Why it matters The case shows how completely abandoning a client, including failing to communicate and missing trial, combined with ignoring State Bar investigations, leads directly to disbarment. It protects clients who rely on lawyers to show up and communicate, and reinforces that ignoring disciplinary proceedings does not avoid punishment. > The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (1,765 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0661.md?full=1