--- title: In the Matter of David Carleton Head collection: opinions id: S23Y0635 cite_as: In the Matter of David Carleton Head, 317 Ga. 512 (2023) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23Y0635 md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23Y0635.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23Y0635/text source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10680020/in-the-matter-of-david-carleton-head/ date: 2023-10-11 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/S23A0684.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23Y0688.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md omitted: opinion extras omitted_chars: 2251 omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23Y0635.md?full=1 docket: S23Y0635 citation: 317 Ga. 512 court: Supreme Court of Georgia case_type: bar discipline authoring_justice: Per Curiam disposition: Notice of Discipline rejected vote: All the Justices concur word_count: 1146 date_filed_source: courtlistener record_source: courtlistener legal_areas: - professional discipline upstream_id: "10680020" summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5 --- # In the Matter of David Carleton Head Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S23Y0635, filed 2023-10-11, 317 Ga. 512. ## Opinion 317 Ga. 512 FINAL COPY S23Y0635. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CARLETON HEAD. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of Discipline seeking a public reprimand for David Carleton Head (State Bar No. 341467), based on his abandonment of a client. According to the Bar’s notice of service, Head, who has been a member of the Bar since 1990, was served personally with the Notice of Discipline. However, Head failed to file a Notice of Rejection. Therefore, he is in default, has waived his right 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). However, because the Bar fails to describe several instances of prior discipline that Head received, and that the Bar cites as aggravating factors, we reject the Notice of Discipline. The facts, deemed admitted by Head’s default, are as follows. In June 2020, Head agreed to represent a client in a criminal matter. Head received a fee of $1,500 from the client, filed a motion for bond on the client’s behalf, and represented the client at two bond hearings. Head’s representation of the client ended on June 1, 2021, but despite being informed by the client that the client would be unable to obtain the services of a public defender until Head withdrew, Head failed to take any action to effectuate such a withdrawal until December 8, 2021. Head also failed to respond to numerous requests between June 1, 2021, and December 8, 2021, for updates regarding whether he had moved to withdraw. The client was finally able to obtain the services of a public defender on January 14, 2022. The Bar has alleged that, by his misconduct, Head violated the following provisions of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct: (1) Rule 1.3,1 by failing to timely withdraw when his representation 1 Rule 1.3 requires that an attorney “act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” The maximum sanction for a single violation of this Rule is disbarment. was terminated by the client; (2) Rule 1.4 (a) (4),2 by failing to respond to numerous requests by the client for information regarding whether Head had withdrawn; and (3) Rules 1.16 (a) (3),3 1.16 (c),4 and 1.16 (d),5 by failing to timely withdraw after the client had informed Head that withdrawal was necessary in order for the client to be able to obtain the services of a public defender. The Bar then stated that Head had been subject to discipline on three prior occasions, receiving Investigative Panel reprimands on April 13, 2007, and August 15, 2008, and a letter of admonition on August 6, 2009. 2 Rule 1.4 (a) (4) requires that an attorney “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” The maximum sanction for a single violation of this Rule is a public reprimand. 3 Rule 1.16 (a) (3) requires that an attorney withdraw from the representation of a client if the attorney is discharged. The maximum sanction for a single violation of this Rule is a public reprimand. 4 Rule 1.16 (c) requires that, “[w]hen a lawyer withdraws it shall be done in compliance with applicable laws and rules.” The maximum sanction for a single violation of this Rule is a public reprimand. 5 Rule 1.16 (d) requires that, “[u]pon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests.” The maximum sanction for a single violation of this Rule is a public reprimand. Moving to the guidance provided by the ABA Standards in assessing the appropriate level of discipline, the Bar stated that, under ABA Standard 4.43, a reprimand is the presumptively appropriate sanction where a lawyer has been negligent, has not acted with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury or potential injury. The Bar asserted that Head had been negligent in failing to promptly move to withdraw, which caused a delay in the client’s ability to obtain the services of a public defender, and had failed to act with reasonable diligence in failing to respond to the client’s requests for information regarding the withdrawal. Under ABA Standard 7.3, a reprimand is the presumptively appropriate sanction where a lawyer has negligently engaged in conduct that violates his duties as a professional, and which has caused injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. As for this Standard, the Bar again noted that Head acted negligently in failing to timely withdraw, which caused a delay in the client’s ability to obtain the services of a public defender. The Bar concluded that two aggravating factors were present: that Head has substantial experience in the practice of law, see ABA Standard 9.22 (i), and that Head had previously been subject to discipline, see ABA Standard 9.22 (a). The Bar concluded that no mitigating factors were applicable and recommended that Head receive a public reprimand, citing several cases in support of such a level of discipline. See In the Matter of Fisher, 311 Ga. 77 (855 SE2d 640) (2021); In the Matter of Woodward, 313 Ga. 112 (868 SE2d 231) (2022); In the Matter of Robinson, 288 Ga. 30 (701 SE2d 142) (2010). Despite Head’s default, we conclude that it would not be appropriate to move forward with the sanction recommended by the Bar. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the Bar’s filing how aggravating Head’s prior disciplinary offenses should be, as the Bar has provided no information regarding the misconduct that led to the three cited prior instances of discipline imposed on Head. Because we lack that information, we cannot determine to what extent these prior disciplinary matters should be aggravating as to the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed here. Under Rule 4-208.1, we may decline to impose discipline that varies from the Bar’s recommendation, and we may instead reject the Bar’s Notice of Discipline. See In the Matter of Wadsworth, 307 Ga. 311 (835 SE2d 632) (2019). Considering these precedents, and given the state of the record before us, we reject the Notice of Discipline. In doing so, we advise the Bar that any future attempts to resolve Head’s disciplinary matter should provide adequate context to his previous disciplinary proceedings to allow for an assessment of their impact on this matter, if any. Additionally, we caution the Bar that, despite Head’s default, should the Bar seek to impose a more serious sanction on Head than the one sought here, he should be given a renewed opportunity to respond to any such filing by the Bar. Notice of Discipline rejected. All the Justices concur. Decided October 11, 2023. Notice of Discipline. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, William V. Hearnburg, Jr., 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 rejected the State Bar's request to publicly reprimand attorney David Carleton Head for abandoning a client, finding the Bar had not explained his three prior disciplinary offenses enough to judge how serious they were. ### Plain-language summary A client hired attorney David Carleton Head in 2020 to handle a criminal case and paid him $1,500. After Head's representation effectively ended in June 2021, the client repeatedly asked him to formally withdraw from the case, because the client could not get a public defender until Head did so. Head ignored those requests and did not withdraw until December 2021, delaying the client's access to a public defender until January 2022. The State Bar filed a Notice of Discipline seeking a public reprimand, and because Head never responded, he was in default and lost his right to a hearing. The Bar pointed to Head's three prior disciplinary actions as reasons to increase the punishment, but never described what misconduct led to those earlier cases. The Supreme Court of Georgia decided it could not evaluate how much weight those unexplained prior offenses should carry, so it rejected the Bar's proposed reprimand and sent the matter back for a better-supported filing. ### Holding, as summarized The court held that it could not adopt the Bar's recommended public reprimand because the Bar failed to describe the underlying misconduct behind Head's three prior disciplinary actions, making it impossible to assess how much those prior matters should aggravate the appropriate sanction, so the Notice of Discipline was rejected. ### Disposition Notice of Discipline rejected. All the Justices concur. ### Why it matters The ruling means Head's discipline case remains unresolved and the Bar must refile with more detail about his disciplinary history. It also signals to the State Bar that vague references to a lawyer's past discipline are not enough to support a sanction, affecting how future attorney discipline cases are documented. > The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (2,251 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23Y0635.md?full=1