In the Matter of Robert David Arkin

Robert David Arkin, a Georgia lawyer, failed multiple clients over several years: he missed deadlines that got cases dismissed, mishandled a trust he was appointed to oversee, commingled client and personal money in his trust account, and abandoned clients facing huge default judgments without telling them. Arkin asked the court for a lenient six-month suspension, blaming severe personal and psychological struggles including divorce, deaths in his family, and a COVID-19 diagnosis. A Special Master who heard the evidence rejected that request and recommended a three-year suspension with conditions, finding Arkin's violations serious and mostly knowing rather than merely careless. A Review Board asked to double-check that recommendation instead sent the case back for more fact-finding on restitution amounts and reinstatement conditions. The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the Review Board's remand, accepted the Special Master's three-year suspension, and adjusted the reinstatement conditions itself rather than sending the case back.

The court held that a three-year suspension, not a six-month suspension, was the appropriate sanction given the number and severity of Arkin's rule violations, and that the court itself, rather than the Special Master on remand, could set and modify the specific conditions for his eventual reinstatement.

The ruling confirms Georgia's highest court retains final say over attorney discipline and reinstatement conditions without needing to send cases back for more fact-finding. It also protects Arkin's harmed clients, some owing six-figure judgments or awaiting restitution, and signals that serious, repeated client neglect draws multi-year suspensions even with documented personal hardship.

Three-year suspension with conditions imposed

1. The court explained that it defers to a Special Master's factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but reviews independently (de novo) the legal conclusions about which rules were violated and what punishment fits.
2. Applying that standard, the court found the evidence supported the Special Master's conclusions that Arkin violated trust-accounting rules by paying trust expenses from his personal operating account instead of his client trust account and by failing to fully account for transferred funds.
3. The court agreed that Arkin's failure to respond to a show-cause order in one client's federal case violated his duty to act diligently and follow the scope of representation, since the client reasonably expected Arkin to handle that filing.
4. The court agreed with the finding that most of Arkin's misconduct was done knowingly rather than merely negligently, noting Arkin himself admitted acting knowingly in several instances, which supports a harsher sanction under the relevant American Bar Association sanctioning guidelines.
5. Weighing aggravating factors (prior discipline, a pattern of multiple offenses, vulnerable elderly clients, and indifference to restitution) against mitigating factors (personal and psychological problems, remorse, remoteness of past discipline), the court concluded a three-year suspension, not six months, was warranted.
6. Because the Supreme Court of Georgia holds ultimate authority over attorney discipline and reinstatement conditions, the court decided it could directly revise the reinstatement conditions itself instead of sending the case back to the Special Master for further fact-finding as the Review Board had suggested.

• attorney suspension
• State Bar discipline
• trust account violations
• client neglect
• restitution conditions