In re Cummings

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. S12Y1443

S12Y1461.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court of Georgia considered two disciplinary matters involving Lisa M. Cummings, a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 1996. Previously suspended for 18 months in April 2012, with reinstatement conditioned on a psychiatric evaluation, Cummings faced Notices of Discipline seeking her disbarment. The State Bar attempted personal service of these notices but was unsuccessful; service was ultimately effected by publication under Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Cummings failed to file Notices of Rejection, resulting in default and waiver of her rights to an evidentiary hearing.

In the first matter (S12Y1443), Cummings was employed as a contract attorney for the Office of the Public Defender for the City of Atlanta from July 1 to September 15, 2010. An official review revealed she submitted and was paid for falsified invoices totaling $2,754 for work not performed. Following termination of her contract, grievances were filed by the Interim Director and chief judge. Cummings filed an unsworn response containing false allegations against city officials. The Investigative Panel found violations of professional conduct rules prohibiting dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and failure to respond properly to disciplinary authorities.

In the second matter (S12Y1461), two weeks after her contract termination, Cummings was retained by a client to file suit against a university. The client paid $5,000 via personal checks, one of which Cummings promised to destroy after replacement by certified funds but instead presented for payment, which was dishonored. Cummings failed to file suit or act on the client’s behalf, lied about communications, withdrew as counsel without returning documents or unearned fees, and filed a sworn response containing false allegations against the client. The Investigative Panel found multiple violations including abandonment of the legal matter, failure to keep the client informed, failure to protect client interests upon termination, and dishonesty.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Lisa M. Cummings violated the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct through dishonesty, fraud, deceit, failure to properly respond to disciplinary authorities, abandonment of client matters, and failure to protect client interests upon termination of representation.
What disciplinary sanction is appropriate given the violations and Cummings's prior disciplinary record.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
In the Matter of Ortman, 289 Ga. 130, 709 S.E.2d 784 (2011)	Importance of protecting the public from attorneys unqualified due to incompetence or unprofessional conduct and maintaining public confidence in the profession.	Guided the Court’s emphasis on public protection and confidence in determining the appropriate sanction.
In the Matter of Brown, 289 Ga. 912, 717 S.E.2d 217 (2011)	Disbarment for violations of multiple professional conduct rules including dishonesty and neglect.	Supported the Court’s decision that disbarment is appropriate for similar violations in this case.
In the Matter of Eaton, 286 Ga. 28, 685 S.E.2d 279 (2009)	Disbarment for extensive violations including failure to communicate, dishonesty, and neglect.	Reinforced the sanction of disbarment for serious breaches of ethical duties.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the undisputed facts deemed admitted due to Cummings's default and found multiple violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, notably Rule 8.4(a)(4) prohibiting dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and other rules related to client communication, diligence, and protection of client interests. The Court considered the severity of Cummings's misconduct, including falsification of invoices, abandonment of a client’s legal matter, failure to return unearned fees, and making false allegations during disciplinary investigations. The Court also took into account Cummings's prior disciplinary record and the aggravating factor of deceit.

Balancing the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession, the Court relied on precedent disbarring attorneys for comparable misconduct. Given the gravity of the violations and lack of mitigation, the Court concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court ordered that Lisa M. Cummings be disbarred and her name removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia.

Implications: This decision directly terminates Cummings's legal practice privileges in Georgia. The Court emphasized the importance of public protection and confidence in the legal profession. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming the appropriateness of disbarment for serious ethical violations and deceit.

Show full summary ...

In the Matter of Lisa M. CUMMINGS (two cases).

PER CURIAM.

Paula J. Frederick, Gen. Counsel State Bar, Jonathan Winslow Hewett, Asst. Gen. Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.
PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court on two Notices of Discipline seeking the disbarment of Lisa M. Cummings, who became a member of the State Bar of Georgia in 1996 and was suspended from the practice of law for 18 months in April 2012, with reinstatement conditioned upon a psychiatric evaluation that she is fit to resume the practice of law. In the Matter of Cummings, 291 Ga. 310, 728 S.E.2d 688 (2012). In the disciplinary actions now before us, Cummings acknowledged service of the notices of investigation, but the attempts of the State Bar of Georgia to serve Cummings personally with the notices of discipline at the address listed with the State Bar resulted in the sheriff's return of service non est inventus. The State Bar then properly served Cummings by publication pursuant to Rule 4–203.1(b)(3)(ii) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Since Cummings failed to file a Notice of Rejection in either matter, she is in default, has waived her rights to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Rule 4–208.1(b).

State Bar of Georgia No. 201865

The facts in S12Y1443, as deemed admitted by virtue of Cummings's defaults, show that Cummings was employed from July 1–September 15, 2010, as a contract attorney with the Office of the Public Defender for the City of Atlanta. A review by city officials of invoices Cummings submitted showed she sought and received payment for work she did not perform, with the falsified invoices totaling $2,754. Following this review, her contract was terminated and the Interim Director of the Public Defender's Office and the chief judge of the municipal court filed grievances with the State Bar of Georgia. In the unsworn response Cummings filed the notice of investigation, she made false allegations of improper conduct against city officials, including the interim director and the chief judge. Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel of the State Bar of Georgia found that Cummings had violated Rule 8.4(a)(4) (an attorney shall not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and Rule 9.3 (during the investigation of a grievance filed with the State Bar, the attorney complained against shall respond to disciplinary authorities in accordance with the Rules of the State Bar). The maximum punishment for a violation of Rule 9.3 is a public reprimand, while the maximum punishment for a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) is disbarment. In aggravation of discipline, the Investigative Panel considered Cummings's deceit and her prior disciplinary record.

The facts related to the second matter, S12Y1461, show that two weeks after her contract with the Atlanta public defender was terminated, Cummings was retained by a client to file suit against the university at which the client was enrolled. The client paid Cummings a $5,000 fee with two personal checks. At Cummings's request, the client subsequently provided certified funds to replace one of the personal checks, and Cummings assured the client the previously-delivered personal check would be destroyed. Despite her receipt of the certified funds, Cummings did not destroy the personal check and presented it to the client's bank for payment, where it was not honored due to insufficient funds. Cummings failed to file suit or take any other action on the client's behalf and lied to the client about her communications with the university. After Cummings failed to comply with the client's requests for payment receipts and for copies of Cummings's written communications with the university, Cummings sent the client an e-mail withdrawing as her counsel. Thereafter, Cummings failed to return the client's documents or unearned fee and failed to provide an itemized statement. After the client filed her grievance against Cummings with the State Bar, the State Bar served Cummings with a Notice of Investigation, to which Cummings filed a sworn response in which she made false allegations of improper conduct by the client in an effort to mislead the Investigative Panel about her own misconduct.

Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel found that Cummings's conduct violated Rule 1.3 (a lawyer shall not without just cause willfully abandon or willfully disregard a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer); Rule 1.4 (a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of matters and shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); Rule 1.16(d) (a lawyer, upon termination of representation, shall take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests, such as surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned); Rule 3.2 (a lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the client's interests); and Rule 8.4(a)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.3 and 8.4(a)(4) is disbarment, with a public reprimand the maximum violation for the remaining rules. In aggravation of discipline, the Investigative Panel considered Cummings's deceit, her abandonment of her client's case, and her prior disciplinary record.

Having reviewed the records and keeping in mind the importance of protecting the public from attorneys not qualified to practice law due to incompetence or unprofessional conduct, and the need for public confidence in the profession (In the Matter of Ortman, 289 Ga. 130–131, 709 S.E.2d 784 (2011), we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in these matters. See In the Matter of Brown, 289 Ga. 912, 717 S.E.2d 217 (2011) (attorney disbarred for violating Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.16(a), (c), (d), 3.2, 8.4(a)(3), and 9.3); In the Matter of Eaton, 286 Ga. 28, 685 S.E.2d 279 (2009) (attorney disbarred for violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, 3.3, 8.4(a)(1), (4), and 9.3). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Lisa M. Cummings be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Cummings is reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4–219(c).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
-------- Notes: