--- title: In the Matter of David J. Farnham collection: opinions id: S22Y0880 cite_as: In the Matter of David J. Farnham, 313 Ga. 801 (2022) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0880 md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0880.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0880/text source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10679893/in-the-matter-of-david-j-farnham/ date: 2022-05-17 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/S22A0025.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0564.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md omitted: opinion extras omitted_chars: 1676 omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0880.md?full=1 docket: S22Y0880 citation: 313 Ga. 801 court: Supreme Court of Georgia case_type: bar discipline authoring_justice: Per Curiam disposition: Voluntary surrender of license accepted (equivalent to disbarment) vote: All the Justices concur word_count: 859 date_filed_source: courtlistener citations: - 873 S.E.2d 164 record_source: courtlistener legal_areas: - professional discipline upstream_id: "10679893" summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5 --- # In the Matter of David J. Farnham Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S22Y0880, filed 2022-05-17, 313 Ga. 801. ## Opinion 313 Ga. 801 FINAL COPY S22Y0880. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. FARNHAM. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Special Master LaVonda Rochelle DeWitt recommending that the Court accept the petition for voluntary surrender of license filed by respondent David J. Farnham (State Bar No. 255410), which he filed in lieu of an answer to a formal complaint filed in February 2022.1 Farnham was admitted to the Bar in 1986 and has a substantial disciplinary history. See In the Matter of Farnham, 300 Ga. 645, 647 (797 SE2d 84) (2017) (accepting voluntary petition, imposing public reprimand, and noting prior disciplinary history) (“Farnham I”). He also has a disciplinary matter pending. See In the Matter of Farnham, 312 Ga. 1 Also before the Court is Farnham’s motion to stay the Court’s issuance of this opinion until a criminal jury trial scheduled for later this month for one of Farnham’s clients is completed. Having reviewed Farnham’s motion, the State Bar’s response, and Farnham’s reply brief, the Court denies the motion. 65 (860 SE2d 547) (2021) (in disciplinary matter involving formal complaint filed in 2019, vacating special master’s report and recommendation, vacating Review Board’s report and recommendation, and remanding to special master for further proceedings) (“Farnham II”). Following this Court’s issuance of Farnham II, the State Bar filed the formal complaint at issue here, alleging numerous violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d), in connection with Farnham’s representation of a different client, whose grievance was not at issue in Farnham II. The facts, as admitted in Farnham’s petition for voluntary surrender, are as follows. Farnham was retained by a client to pursue a personal injury claim for injuries suffered by her minor daughter in an automobile accident. The insurance carrier for the at-fault driver agreed to pay the policy limits of $250,000, and Farnham received those proceeds in June 2019 and deposited them into his trust account. Farnham explained to his client that because her daughter was a minor, he would need to file a petition to compromise the claim of a minor in the probate court. Thereafter, Farnham failed to promptly file a petition in the probate court and failed to respond to many of his client’s messages seeking information about the settlement proceeds. Farnham was briefly suspended from the practice of law by this Court for failing to adequately respond to a notice of investigation in an unrelated matter. See Case No. S20Y0901 (imposing suspension on March 3, 2020, and lifting suspension on June 19, 2020). During this time, Farnham explained to his client that he could not do anything while he was suspended. However, even after the suspension was lifted, Farnham failed to file a petition with the probate court. Farnham represented in his petition for voluntary surrender that the money remains in his trust account,2 and he admitted that by this conduct he violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2 and 1.3 is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4 and 3.2 is a public reprimand. 2 In his reply brief in support of his motion to stay, Farnham represents that he has sent a check for $250,000 from his trust account to his client’s new counsel. The State Bar filed a response, recommending that the petition for voluntary surrender be accepted, and in a thorough report and recommendation, the Special Master recommended that the Court accept the petition for voluntary surrender, which is tantamount to disbarment.3 See Rule 1.0 (r). Having reviewed the record, we agree with the Special Master’s recommendation and hereby accept Farnham’s petition for voluntary surrender of his license, which is consistent with prior cases. See, e.g., In the Matter of Redwine, 311 Ga. 287 (857 SE2d 193) (2021) (accepting, upon recommendation of special master, petition for voluntary surrender of license following filing of formal complaint alleging misconduct in representation of client in personal injury matter); In the Matter of Morrey, 298 Ga. 435 (782 SE2d 444) (2016) (accepting, upon recommendation of special master, petition for voluntary surrender of license following filing of 3 The Bar, which did not charge Farnham with a violation of Rule 3.2, disputed that it applies to the conduct at issue, and the Special Master concluded that the rule was inapplicable. However, as the facts and violations admitted are more than adequate to support the petition for voluntary surrender, we need not determine the applicability of Rule 3.2 in this matter. formal complaint and following filing of separate grievance). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of David J. Farnham be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Farnham is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b). Voluntary surrender of license accepted. All the Justices concur. Decided May 17, 2022. Voluntary surrender of license. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, James S. Lewis, General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. Gene Chapman, for Farnham. ## 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 accepted an attorney's voluntary surrender of his law license after he admitted mishandling a $250,000 personal injury settlement for a minor and failing to communicate with his client. ### Plain-language summary David J. Farnham, a Georgia lawyer, was hired by a mother to pursue a personal injury claim for injuries her minor daughter suffered in a car accident. An insurance company paid $250,000 to settle the claim, and Farnham deposited the money into his trust account. Because the injured person was a minor, Farnham needed to file a petition in probate court to formally approve the settlement, but he repeatedly failed to do so and did not respond to many of his client's messages asking about the money. The State Bar of Georgia filed a formal complaint accusing Farnham of violating several rules of professional conduct. Rather than fight the charges, Farnham asked to voluntarily give up his law license. A special master reviewed the case and recommended the court accept that request. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed and ordered Farnham's name removed from the list of lawyers allowed to practice in Georgia. ### Holding, as summarized The court held that Farnham's admitted violations of the rules requiring diligence, communication, and reasonable case management were serious enough that his petition to voluntarily surrender his law license, which is treated the same as disbarment, should be accepted. ### Disposition Voluntary surrender of license accepted (equivalent to disbarment). All the Justices concur. ### Why it matters The case shows how Georgia disciplines lawyers who mishandle client funds and fail to communicate, especially in cases involving vulnerable clients like injured children. It reassures the public that lawyers who neglect settlement funds face losing their license to practice. > The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (1,676 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22Y0880.md?full=1