In re Meaney

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia imposed a three-month suspension on James A. Meaney III as reciprocal discipline following his Tennessee suspension. Reinstatement in Georgia was conditioned on proof that Meaney had been reinstated to practice law in Tennessee.

Holdings

1. Meaney failed to establish any Rule 9.4(b)(3) ground warranting discipline different from the Tennessee discipline, so reciprocal discipline was appropriate.
2. Georgia imposed a three-month suspension because identical discipline was not possible where the Tennessee sanction included a practice monitor, a sanction not provided for by Georgia's rules.
3. Before seeking reinstatement in Georgia, Meaney must provide proof that he has been reinstated to practice law in Tennessee; the State Bar must submit a notice of compliance, after which the Court will grant or deny reinstatement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed under Georgia Bar Rule 9.4(b) based on Meaney's Tennessee suspension.
2. Whether Georgia should impose a discipline different from the Tennessee discipline because the Georgia rules do not authorize a practice-monitor sanction and because Meaney argued that a three-month suspension would be unduly severe.
3. What condition should govern Meaney's potential reinstatement to practice law in Georgia.

Disposition

other