Introduction

In this per curiam disciplinary decision, the Supreme Court of Georgia ordered the disbarment of attorney Destin Michelle Gillum for pervasive misconduct across six client matters, including knowing abandonment of cases, dishonesty to a client regarding discovery, unreasonable fees, failure to expedite litigation, and non-responsiveness to the State Bar. The proceedings reached the Court on a default—after personal service could not be perfected and service by publication was effected, Gillum neither answered the Formal Complaint nor responded to the State Bar’s motion for default. The Special Master recommended disbarment, and no party filed exceptions.

The decision both applies and reinforces several core principles of attorney discipline in Georgia: (1) the allegations of a Formal Complaint are deemed admitted upon default; (2) knowing abandonment of multiple client matters, especially accompanied by dishonesty and non-cooperation with the Bar, presumptively warrants disbarment; and (3) restitution to injured clients is a mandatory precondition for any future readmission.

Gillum, admitted to the Bar in 2020, was already administratively suspended for failure to pay license fees and for failing to respond in a separate disciplinary matter. Her conduct here was substantiated by deemed admissions and documentary detail from six State Disciplinary Board Dockets (SDBD Nos. 7973–7978), involving primarily family-law clients.

Summary of the Opinion

• The Court adopted the Special Master’s findings that Gillum violated Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.4(a)(4), and 9.3.
• Key factual findings (deemed admitted by default) established that Gillum accepted fees, failed to file or pursue matters, missed or failed to prepare for hearings, did not communicate or return client files/fees on request, made a false statement about discovery, submitted an erroneous QDRO without correction, and ignored Bar investigations.
• Applying the ABA Standards, the Special Master—and the Court—found Gillum acted knowingly, caused serious client injury, and presented significant aggravating factors (pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad-faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and indifference to restitution) that substantially outweighed limited mitigation (no prior discipline; inexperience).
• Disbarment was imposed. The Court ordered that any future petition for readmission must be supported by proof of restitution to injured clients, consistent with In the Matter of Herbert, 319 Ga. 881 (2024).
• All Justices concurred.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions; In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (1996). The Court, following long-standing Georgia practice, used the ABA Standards framework—considering (i) duties violated, (ii) mental state, (iii) actual/potential injury, and (iv) aggravating/mitigating factors (Standard 3.0). The Special Master concluded disbarment is presumptive where a lawyer knowingly abandons clients and causes serious harm—a conclusion the Court endorsed.
• In the Matter of Greene, 320 Ga. 527 (2024); In the Matter of Cleveland, 317 Ga. 515 (2023); In the Matter of McCalep, 318 Ga. 260 (2024); In the Matter of Briley-Holmes, 304 Ga. 199 (2018). These decisions establish and reinforce that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for attorneys who abandon multiple clients, fail to prosecute matters, charge unreasonable fees, and/or engage in dishonesty. The present case is firmly aligned with these authorities—particularly where the respondent defaults and fails to engage in the disciplinary process.
• In the Matter of Herbert, 319 Ga. 881 (2024). The Court reiterated that restitution to injured clients is mandatory if the disbarred attorney seeks reinstatement. By expressly tying readmission to restitution proof, the Court underscores client protection and remediation as essential objectives of the disciplinary system.
• Bar Rules governing procedure: Service by publication is permitted when personal service cannot be perfected (Bar Rule 4-203.1(b)(3)(ii)); default deems allegations admitted (Bar Rule 4-212(a)); and disbarred attorneys must comply with post-judgment duties (Bar Rule 4-219(b)).

Legal Reasoning

1) Procedural posture and default admissions

After failed attempts at personal service, the State Bar served Gillum by publication. Gillum did not respond to the Formal Complaint or to the motion for default. Under Bar Rule 4-212(a), the allegations were deemed admitted. No exceptions were filed, and the Court evaluated the Special Master’s recommendation on the record as established by default.

2) Duties and Rules violated

• Rule 1.2(a) (abiding by client decisions; consulting on means): Violated across all matters by failing to pursue agreed objectives, to prepare and present filings or orders (e.g., legitimation order; QDRO), and to communicate as required by the circumstances.
• Rule 1.3 (diligence): Knowing abandonment and willful disregard of client matters caused concrete detriment, including court sanctions and uncorrected orders.
• Rule 1.4(a)(1)–(4) (communication): Failures to inform clients, reasonably consult on means, keep them apprised of status, and respond to requests for information.
• Rule 1.5(a) (reasonable fees): Collecting and retaining full fees despite non-performance rendered the fees unreasonable.
• Rule 1.16(d) (protecting client interests on termination): Failure to refund unearned fees and to surrender client files upon request (expressly found in SDBD No. 7974; implicated more broadly by abandonment).
• Rule 3.2 (expediting litigation): Failure to make reasonable efforts to move cases forward, including not responding to discovery, not serving responses, missing hearings, and not drafting required orders.
• Rule 8.4(a)(4) (dishonesty): In SDBD No. 7974, making a false representation to a client that discovery responses had been filed when they had not.
• Rule 9.3 (duty to respond to disciplinary authorities): Non-responsiveness to multiple Bar grievances and notices of investigation.

The Court also noted the maximum sanction ranges: disbarment is authorized for violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, and 8.4(a)(4); public reprimand is the maximum for Rules 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, and 9.3. In aggregate, the pattern and seriousness of the violations—notably those authorizing disbarment—compelled the ultimate sanction.

3) Mental state, injury, and sanction under the ABA Standards

• Mental state: The Special Master found Gillum acted knowingly, consciously disregarding six client matters and, in one instance, engaging in dishonesty to shield herself.
• Injury: Serious client harm was documented: lost fees, court-imposed attorney’s fees due to counsel’s defaults, anxiety and uncertainty, missed or delayed relief (e.g., parenting plan/legitimation), and an erroneous QDRO entered without correction.
• Aggravation: Pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; bad-faith obstruction (ignoring disciplinary process); refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing; indifference to restitution (ABA Standards 9.22(c), (d), (e), (g), (j)).
• Mitigation: Only the absence of prior discipline and relative inexperience (ABA Standards 9.31; 9.32(a), (f))—substantially outweighed by aggravation.

Within this framework, disbarment was the presumptive sanction for knowing abandonment and dishonesty causing significant client injury, consistent with how Georgia has applied the ABA Standards in comparable cases.

4) Consistency with prior Georgia sanctions jurisprudence

The Court emphasized alignment with recent disbarment cases—Greene (2024), Cleveland (2023), McCalep (2024), and Briley-Holmes (2018)—all of which impose disbarment where attorneys abandon multiple clients, fail to pursue cases, charge unreasonable fees, and/or engage in deceit, particularly when they default and fail to participate in the disciplinary process. This case fits squarely within that line, underscoring that default plus widespread, knowing neglect and dishonesty creates a strong presumption for disbarment.

5) Restitution as a condition for any future readmission

Echoing Herbert (2024), the Court required Gillum to make and prove restitution to injured clients as a prerequisite to readmission. This condition is increasingly prominent in Georgia’s disciplinary orders and serves both remedial and deterrent functions: it attempts to make clients whole and signals that monetary harm will be directly addressed in any pathway back to licensure.

Impact and Practical Implications

A) For practitioners

• Default equals admission: Failing to answer a Formal Complaint or to respond to disciplinary notices will result in deemed admissions and likely severe sanctions.
• Abandonment is disbarment territory: Knowing non-performance across multiple matters, particularly with dishonesty and non-cooperation, virtually ensures disbarment.
• Communication is non-optional: Rules 1.4(a)(1)–(4) require proactive notice, reasonable consultation about means, status updates, and timely responses to client inquiries—especially around missed deadlines or intended withdrawal.
• Flat fees must be earned and reasonable: A flat-fee arrangement does not excuse the duty to refund unearned portions (Rules 1.5(a), 1.16(d)). Lack of invoices does not shield unreasonable fees.
• Expedite litigation: Rule 3.2 is enforceable. Failing to serve discovery responses, missing hearings, or not drafting required orders can independently support discipline.
• Honesty to clients is foundational: Misstating the status of filings or court actions (Rule 8.4(a)(4)) is aggravating and sanction-enhancing.
• Cooperate with the Bar or face enhanced sanctions: Non-responsiveness (Rule 9.3) is itself a violation and aggravates sanction severity.
• Maintain accurate contact information and continuity of practice: Office moves or phone changes do not mitigate duties to courts, clients, or the Bar; they heighten the need for robust communication.
• If overwhelmed, withdraw correctly: Timely motion to withdraw, notice, file surrender, and fee refunds are required steps to protect client interests (Rule 1.16(d)).

B) For clients and courts

• Client protection: The opinion reassures that Georgia’s disciplinary system responds decisively to attorney abandonment and disharmony, and it conditions readmission on restitution.
• Court efficiency: Enforcing Rule 3.2 supports docket integrity and incentivizes timely participation by counsel.
• Family-law sensitivity: The harms here—missed parenting plan modifications, divorce delays, erroneous QDROs—illustrate the heightened vulnerability of family-law clients to attorney neglect.

C) For disciplinary administration

• Service by publication is effective and sufficient: Where personal service fails, Bar Rule 4-203.1(b)(3)(ii) permits continued prosecution to protect the public.
• Default-based discipline remains robust: The Court’s adherence to default admissions streamlines proceedings against non-participating respondents.
• Restitution-centric remedies: The readmission condition aligns disciplinary outcomes with client remediation goals.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Default in Bar proceedings: If an attorney does not timely answer a Formal Complaint, the factual allegations are treated as admitted (similar to a civil default judgment) and sanction can be imposed on that basis.
• Special Master: A court-appointed official who conducts proceedings, makes findings, and recommends sanctions in disciplinary matters.
• ABA Standards (Selected): A widely used framework guiding sanction analysis by assessing duty, mental state, harm, and aggravation/mitigation.
• Rule 1.2(a) vs. Rule 1.3: Rule 1.2(a) obligates lawyers to honor client objectives and consult on means; Rule 1.3 requires diligence and promptness. Abandonment can violate both—failing to pursue agreed goals and failing to act diligently.
• Rule 1.4(a) (communication): Requires proactive information-sharing about significant decisions, reasonable consultation on strategy, status updates, and prompt responses to client inquiries.
• Rule 1.5(a) and flat fees: Even flat fees must be reasonable in amount and earned by performance; unearned portions must be refunded.
• Rule 1.16(d): On ending representation, the lawyer must protect the client—give notice, allow time to find new counsel, return the file, and refund unearned fees.
• Rule 3.2: Attorneys must take reasonable steps to move cases forward consistent with client interests; persistent delays can be discipline-worthy.
• Rule 8.4(a)(4): Prohibits dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—including false status updates to clients.
• Rule 9.3: Requires cooperation with Bar investigations; silence is itself a violation.
• QDRO: A Qualified Domestic Relations Order is a court order dividing retirement plan benefits in divorce; accuracy is critical to prevent financial harm.
• Legitimation: A Georgia proceeding establishing a legal relationship between a father and child; delays or missteps can affect custody and support rights.
• Bar Rule 4-219(b): After disbarment, the attorney must, among other duties, notify clients and courts, withdraw from pending matters, and certify compliance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia’s disbarment of Destin Michelle Gillum is a clear reaffirmation of bedrock disciplinary principles: when a lawyer knowingly abandons multiple clients, lies about case status, charges and retains unreasonable fees, fails to expedite litigation, and disregards the disciplinary process, disbarment is not merely available—it is the presumptive sanction. The Court’s explicit linkage of any future readmission to restitution further cements client-centered remediation as a priority of Georgia’s disciplinary regime.

Practitioners should take careful note: defaulting in Bar proceedings converts allegations into binding admissions; “flat fee” labels do not excuse performance or refund duties; and office upheaval is no defense to communication, diligence, or candor obligations. For clients and courts, this opinion provides assurance that professional lapses of this magnitude will be addressed with the system’s most serious sanctions, and that client harms will be centered in any path to reinstatement.