Following the confirmation of Calhoun`s conviction, the state bar commenced proceedings under Rule 4-106(f) of the Bar To determine the appropriate sanction. The Special Representative held a hearing and heard arguments from the defence lawyer from the State Bar Association and Calhoun, as well as testimony from Calhoun and numerous witnesses on his behalf. The Special Master also considered the Eleventh County`s confirmation of Calhoun`s conviction at the federal sentencing hearing, exhibits about his conduct and achievements in federal custody, and the lawyer`s written closing statements. In 1993, this court granted a request for voluntary suspension of defendant Paul W. Calhoun, Jr., until the outcome of an appeal against his conviction for money laundering and complicity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(1) and (2) was pending. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld Calhoun`s conviction in May 1995.1 Calhoun served a 36-month prison sentence and is currently serving an additional three-year suspended sentence. We must now determine the appropriate sanction for Calhoun`s admitted violation of Standard 66 of Rule 4-102(d) of the Bar on the basis of this conviction 2. We have reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors and agree with the Recommendation of the Georgia State Bar to approve the exclusion.
The state bar presented calhoun`s confirmation of conviction as evidence, arguing that the conviction, as well as the guidelines set out in precedents set by that court, required exclusion. As an indication, the Review Committee took into account the ABA Standards for the Imposition of Lawyer Sanctions (1991)3 and accepted the Special Master`s recommendation to suspend Calhoun for two years. Exclusion is generally the appropriate sanction if a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct4 or conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deception or misrepresentation. Aba 5.11 However, mitigating factors must be considered and may warrant a reduction in the degree of discipline. ABA Standard 9.2. In this case, Calhoun intentionally engaged in criminal conduct directly related to his role as a lawyer. He used his position and expertise to advise his client and co-conspirator to circumvent the law, and then voluntarily became a participant in that plan. Such misconduct directly reflects his suitability as a lawyer. 1. United States vs Brown, 53 F.3d 312 (11 Cir.1995). Although the Eleventh Circuit processed the counts of one co-accused, it unceremoniously upheld the convictions of the other two defendants, including Calhoun. Id., p.
313, fn.1. 3. ABA 9.1 provides that once misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating factors may be considered in determining the appropriate sanction. Labor, Business, Divorce and Family Law, Criminal Law, Bankruptcy and the Debt Appeal Opponent, Paul W. Calhoun, Jr., is hereby prohibited from practising law in this State and his name is removed from the list of persons authorized to practise in Georgia. Calhoun is reminded of his duty to fully comply with Counsel Rule 4-219(c). Any request for reinstatement of rights must meet all requirements at the time of reinstatement of rights. 2. Standard 66 of Rule 4-102(d) of the Law Society states that « the expulsion of a crime or misdemeanour involving moral reprehensibility is a ground for exclusion. » Subsection (a). Agriculture, insurance, divorce and family law, bankruptcy and debt, auto The appearance of a convicted lawyer who continues to practice does more to disrupt public confidence in the legal profession than any other disciplinary matter.
Members of the Bar Association must uphold high standards of conduct. For the law to be respected, the public must be able to respect the people who apply it. We need to determine what sanction is needed « as punishment for the perpetrator, as a deterrent to others, and as an indication to laymen that the courts will respect the ethics of the profession. » In Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488, 493, 277 P.E.2d 36 (1981). While we agree that there are important mitigating circumstances in this case, we nevertheless take the position of the State Bar Association that, in this case, an exclusion is ordered on grounds of public policy in order to protect the public from irregularities that violate public confidence in the lawyer-client relationship. (Quotations and punctuation omitted.) In Stoner, 246 Ga. 581, 582, 272 P.E.2d 313 (1980). Learn more about FindLaw`s newsletters, including our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. 4. « A `serious crime` is defined as any crime and minor crime the necessary element of which involves interference in the administration of justice, false oaths, false statements, fraud, deception, etc. or an attempt or conspiracy to commit a `serious crime.` » Introduction to ABA 5.0.
This website is protected by reCAPTCHA and Google`s privacy policy and terms of use apply. Calhoun acknowledged responsibility for his actions. He testified that he was addicted to prescription drugs and alcohol at the time of the behaviour that led to his conviction. And he explained that the coincidental illnesses of his wife and elderly parents contributed to his addictions. The e-mail address cannot be subscribed. Please try again. Divorce, bankruptcy, landlord-tenant, visa, employment Witnesses who testified on Calhoun`s behalf stated that he was an upright and respected member of the bar until he began abusing alcohol and drugs; whereas his misconduct was due to drug abuse rather than dishonesty or a penchant for crime; and that his imprisonment and treatment for drug addiction led to his rehabilitation.