In the Matter of Terri Sharonda Herron

Terri Sharonda Herron, a Georgia lawyer since 2008, was disciplined after four clients in divorce, custody, and child-support cases complained that she ignored their calls and emails, let court deadlines slip for years, and was slow to refund fees she had not earned. A Special Master held a hearing, found Herron violated multiple State Bar rules, and recommended a six-month suspension. A State Bar review board agreed with those findings but Herron challenged parts of the decision to the Supreme Court of Georgia, including a ruling that blocked an expert witness she wanted to call. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed that Herron violated the rules in all four cases and found she acted knowingly, not just carelessly. Weighing the harm to her clients against the mitigating factors she offered, the court decided six months was not enough punishment and ordered a 12-month suspension instead.

The court held that Herron knowingly violated her duties of diligence, communication, and prompt refund of unearned fees across four client matters, and that given the resulting harm and aggravating factors, a 12-month suspension, rather than the six months recommended below, was the appropriate sanction.

The ruling shows Georgia lawyers can face serious suspensions, not just reprimands, for chronic neglect and poor communication across multiple clients, even without dishonesty. It also reassures family law clients, often vulnerable parents in custody and support disputes, that prolonged unresponsiveness has real professional consequences.

12-month suspension imposed

1. The court reviewed the rule violations de novo and found the record supported that Herron failed to diligently pursue her clients' cases, ignored repeated requests for information, and delayed refunding unearned legal fees, violating Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(d), and 3.2.
2. On mental state, the court applied ABA definitions distinguishing negligence (failing to notice a risk) from knowledge (conscious awareness of one's conduct), concluding Herron acted knowingly because she was aware her inaction and silence were harming her clients.
3. In weighing aggravating factors under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the court agreed Herron showed a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, had substantial legal experience, and had vulnerable clients in contentious custody disputes, though it rejected treating her denial of wrongdoing as a separate aggravating factor.
4. The court rejected most of Herron's proposed mitigating factors, including absence of dishonest motive, restitution, cooperative attitude, physical disability, and remorse, because the record showed she only made clients whole after grievances were filed and offered no specific evidence linking her health issues to the misconduct.
5. Applying ABA Standard 4.42, which presumes suspension appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services and causes serious injury, the court found the six-month suspension recommended below insufficient given the scope of harm and imposed a 12-month suspension instead.

• attorney suspension
• State Bar discipline
• client neglect
• family law representation
• unearned fee refund