--- title: In the Matter of David Carleton Head collection: opinions id: S24Y1274 cite_as: In the Matter of David Carleton Head, 320 Ga. 316 (2024) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S24Y1274 md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S24Y1274.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S24Y1274/text source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10680221/in-the-matter-of-david-carleton-head/ date: 2024-11-05 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/2024.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S25Y0009.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S24A1356.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md omitted: opinion extras omitted_chars: 2053 omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S24Y1274.md?full=1 docket: S24Y1274 citation: 320 Ga. 316 court: Supreme Court of Georgia case_type: bar discipline authoring_justice: Per Curiam disposition: Disbarment imposed vote: All the Justices concur word_count: 1022 date_filed_source: courtlistener citations: - 908 S.E.2d 628 record_source: courtlistener legal_areas: - professional discipline - criminal law upstream_id: "10680221" summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5 --- # In the Matter of David Carleton Head Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S24Y1274, filed 2024-11-05, 320 Ga. 316. ## Opinion 320 Ga. 316 FINAL COPY S24Y1274. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CARLETON HEAD. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Special Master LaVonda Rochelle DeWitt, which was issued after a show cause hearing pursuant to Rule 4-106 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”). The Special Master recommends that David Carleton Head (State Bar No. 341467), a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 1990, be disbarred based upon his conviction for misdemeanor theft by conversion where his victim was his client. The Special Master’s recommendation is based on her finding that Head violated Rule 8.4 (a) (3)1 found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (3) is disbarment. Neither Head nor the State Bar filed exceptions to the Special Master’s report and 1 Rule 8.4 (a) (3) provides that it shall be a violation of the Rules for a lawyer to “be convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude where the underlying conduct relates to the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.” recommendation. Having now undertaken our own review of the record, we agree that disbarment is appropriate. In her report, the Special Master laid out the underlying facts as follows. On May 25, 2022, Head was convicted of one count of theft by conversion in violation of OCGA § 16-8-4, a misdemeanor. Head’s victim was his client who is elderly and in poor health. Head was sentenced to 12 months of probation. The accusation to which Head pleaded guilty states that he converted title to an ambulance owned by his client. The Special Master noted that a lawyer violates Rule 8.4 (a) (3) when convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude where the underlying conduct relates to the lawyer’s fitness to practice law. The Special Master further stated that moral turpitude is defined as including everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. See Carruth v. Brown, 202 Ga. App. 656, 658 (415 SE2d 470) (1992) (misdemeanor bad check conviction involved moral turpitude); In the Matter of Butler, 255 Ga. 41, 41-42 (335 SE2d 296) (1985) (“Theft by conversion by an attorney acting in a fiduciary capacity is a felony . . . and involves moral turpitude.”). The Special Master then found that Head violated Rule 8.4 (a) (3) by virtue of his criminal conviction. The Special Master then looked to the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”) for guidance in determining the appropriate sanction to impose in this case. See In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996). The ABA Standards state that the following should be considered when imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct: the duty violated; the lawyer’s mental state; and the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct. ABA Standard 3.0. The Special Master found that Head violated the duty to maintain professional honesty and integrity, see ABA Standard 5.11, and also violated his duties to this client, see ABA Standard 4.11. The Special Master found that Head acted intentionally and that he caused injury to his client and to the public’s perception of the legal profession and system. Further, the Special Master stated that the ABA Standards specify, absent aggravating and mitigating factors, that the generally appropriate penalty when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation which seriously adversely reflects on his fitness to practice is disbarment. ABA Standard 5.11 (b). Next, the Special Master found that there are several aggravating circumstances present in this matter: (1) prior disciplinary offenses, since Head received two investigative panel reprimands and a letter of admonition, ABA Standard 9.22 (a); (2) dishonest or selfish motive, since Head sought to enrich himself at his client’s expense, ABA Standard 9.22 (b); (3) vulnerability of the victim, ABA Standard 9.22 (h); (4) substantial experience in the practice of law, ABA Standard 9.22 (i); and (5) illegal conduct, ABA Standard 9.22 (k). The Special Master found that there are no mitigating circumstances present here. Accordingly, the Special Master recommended that Head be disbarred. Considering the record as a whole, we agree with the Special Master that Head violated Rule 8.4 (a) (3). Head’s underlying conduct relates to his fitness to practice law, as he converted his client’s property. Further, the circumstances as cited by the Special Master – that Head, who has substantial experience practicing law, intentionally converted his vulnerable client’s property to enrich himself — warrant the Special Master’s determination that Head’s crime in this instance was dishonest, a breach of trust, and contrary to his duty to his client, i.e., one involving moral turpitude. See In re Jones, 293 Ga. 264, 265-266 (1) (744 SE2d 6) (2013) (concluding that misdemeanor convictions for smuggling contraband into jail involved crimes of moral turpitude in part because the acts necessarily involved an element of deceit and dishonesty and were in breach of the “public trust that inheres in the office of attorney”). This Court concludes that the appropriate sanction in this matter is disbarment. See In the Matter of Childers, 297 Ga. 788, 788-789 (778 SE2d 216) (2015) (disbarring attorney for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (3) following the entry of his guilty plea to one count of theft by receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor); In the Matter of Porges-Dodson, 280 Ga. 433, 433-434 (627 SE2d 545) (2006) (disbarring attorney for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (3) where lawyer pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of unlawful conversion of government property, a Social Security check for $425; there were no mitigating factors but lawyer’s disciplinary history was in aggravation). It is hereby ordered that the name of David Carleton Head be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Head is reminded of his duties under Rule 4-219 (b). Disbarred. All the Justices concur. Decided November 5, 2024. Disbarment. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, William V. Hearnburg, Jr., Andreea N. Morrison, 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 Atlanta lawyer David Carleton Head after he was convicted of misdemeanor theft by conversion for taking title to an ambulance belonging to an elderly, vulnerable client. ### Plain-language summary David Carleton Head, a lawyer admitted to practice in Georgia since 1990, was convicted in 2022 of misdemeanor theft by conversion after he converted title to an ambulance owned by his elderly, ailing client. He was sentenced to 12 months of probation for the crime. A Special Master held a hearing and found that this conviction violated the State Bar rule barring lawyers from being convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude (conduct contrary to honesty and good morals) connected to their fitness to practice law. Neither Head nor the State Bar objected to the Special Master's findings. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the record itself and agreed that Head's conduct, taking advantage of a vulnerable client he was supposed to protect, was dishonest and breached his professional duties. The court ordered Head disbarred, removing him from the rolls of lawyers allowed to practice in Georgia. ### Holding, as summarized The court held that Head's misdemeanor theft by conversion conviction, involving the taking of an elderly client's property, violated Rule 8.4(a)(3) because it was a crime of moral turpitude tied to his fitness to practice law, and that disbarment is the appropriate sanction absent mitigating factors. ### Disposition Disbarment imposed. All the Justices concur. ### Why it matters The ruling removes a lawyer with decades of experience from practicing in Georgia, protecting future clients from similar exploitation. It also reinforces that Georgia lawyers who commit crimes of dishonesty against clients, even misdemeanors, face the harshest possible bar discipline. > The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (2,053 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S24Y1274.md?full=1