Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia accepted Eric C. Lang’s petition for voluntary discipline arising from his failure to inform a client about a damages hearing and adverse judgment. The Court imposed a 12-month suspension beginning May 6, 2014, with reinstatement conditioned on proof of mental competency and related reporting and confidentiality requirements. The Court declined to make the suspension retroactive because Lang had not established the prerequisites for nunc pro tunc relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court should accept Lang's second petition for voluntary discipline and impose a suspension.
- Whether Lang's new suspension could properly be made retroactive to May 6, 2013, and run concurrently with his existing suspension.
- What suspension and reinstatement conditions were appropriate in light of Lang's admitted misconduct and mitigating circumstances.
Holdings
- The suspension could not be made retroactive to May 6, 2013 because Lang did not demonstrate that nunc pro tunc treatment was proper. A lawyer seeking such treatment must show that he voluntarily stopped practicing, establish when his practice ended, and demonstrate compliance with related ethical obligations, including facilitating the transfer of client matters and information.
- A 12-month suspension beginning May 6, 2014, with the specified reinstatement and post-suspension conditions, was the appropriate sanction.
Key quotations
“The suspension cannot be made retroactive to May 6, 2013, as Lang suggests, because he has not demonstrated that it is properly entered nunc pro tunc.” (221)
“At the conclusion of the suspension imposed in this matter, if Lang wishes to seek reinstatement, he must offer proof to the State Bar’s Office of General Counsel that the above conditions have been met.” (222)
Factual background
Lang represented a client sued on a note after summary judgment had been entered against the client on all issues except damages. Lang failed to inform the client about the May 1, 2013 damages hearing and resulting judgment, and the client learned of the judgment only after receiving a garnishment notice in July 2013. Lang admitted violating Rules 1.3 and 1.4 and presented mitigation involving mental-health treatment, assistance to substitute counsel, remorse, and efforts to reduce harm to the client.
Procedural history
Lang had previously received a 12-month suspension in a separate matter and had filed an earlier petition concerning the misconduct at issue here, which the Court rejected. In the present proceeding, Lang admitted violating Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4 by failing to inform his client of a damages hearing and adverse judgment. The State Bar recommended an additional one-year suspension with conditions, and the Court accepted the petition while modifying the proposed timing and duration.