In the Matter of Stephen Earl Whitted

Stephen Earl Whitted, a lawyer licensed in both Georgia and Maryland, was indefinitely suspended by the Supreme Court of Maryland after it found he had spent nearly a decade filing frivolous lawsuits and making false allegations against his ex-wife, her new husband, their lawyers, and judges, mostly in Washington state courts. Because of that Maryland suspension, the State Bar of Georgia moved to impose matching reciprocal discipline here. Whitted objected, arguing Maryland violated his due process rights and that he could not be held responsible for a rule that Maryland said did not apply to him. Georgia's State Disciplinary Review Board rejected his arguments, noting he had a full hearing in Maryland where he presented evidence. Whitted did not challenge the Board's recommendation. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with the Board and suspended Whitted from practicing law in Georgia until Maryland changes or lifts its suspension, at which point he may ask to have his Georgia suspension modified or lifted too.

The court held that Whitted failed to show any of the grounds under GRPC 9.4(b)(3) that would justify different discipline than Maryland imposed, so reciprocal discipline was appropriate, and it suspended him from practicing law in Georgia until his Maryland suspension is modified or dissolved.

The decision keeps Whitted from practicing law anywhere in Georgia while his Maryland suspension stands, protecting Georgia clients and courts from further conduct similar to the abusive litigation that led to his discipline. It also illustrates how Georgia automatically enforces sister-state bar discipline unless an attorney proves specific unfairness.

Suspended until further order

1. Georgia's reciprocal discipline rule (GRPC 9.4(b)(3)) generally requires imposing discipline substantially similar to that of another state's bar authority unless the attorney proves specific unfairness, such as a due process violation or grave injustice.
2. Whitted argued the Maryland proceeding violated his due process rights because Maryland referenced rules not formally charged against him and because a Washington rule he says exempts him from responsibility.
3. The Review Board found Whitted had actually received notice and a multi-day hearing in Maryland where he presented testimony and evidence, undercutting his due process claim.
4. The court examined Whitted's specific arguments and found the Maryland opinion did not actually determine he violated the extra rules he complained about, and that the Washington rule he relied on (WRPC 8.5(a)) only addresses whether Washington has authority over him, not whether another state can rely on his Washington-based misconduct.
5. Because Whitted did not meet his burden of showing any recognized exception applied, the court concluded that imposing a matching suspension was the proper outcome under prior similar cases.

• attorney suspension
• reciprocal discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• frivolous lawsuits
• due process