In re Davis

865 S.E.2d 132

In the MATTER OF Monte Kevin DAVIS.

S22Y0085

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: November 2, 2021

William Van Hearnburg, Jr., Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel, Jenny K. Mittelman, William Dallas NeSmith, III, Deputy General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 100, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2934, for Appellant.

Monte Kevin Davis, PO Box 1011, Villa Rica, Georgia 30180, for Appellee.

Herman Maddox Kilgore, Kilgore & Rodriguez LLC, 36 Ayers Avenue, Marietta, Georgia 30060, Jo Carol Nesset-Sale, Mediation & Law Office of Jocarol Nesset-Sale, 325 N Milledge Avenue, Athens, Georgia 30601, for Other Party.

Per Curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on special master Jo Carol Nesset-Sale's report and recommendation, in which she recommends that this Court accept the Second Amended Petition for Voluntary Discipline filed by Respondent Monte Kevin Davis (State Bar. No. 212065), after the filing of a formal complaint, see Bar Rule 4-227 (c), and impose a public reprimand for Davis's admitted violation of Rule 3.1 (a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). We agree that a public reprimand is appropriate under the circumstances of this case.

As recounted by the special master, Davis admitted that he sent a text message to a former client (the "grievant") in an attempt to coerce her into discussing with him a domestic dispute that had blossomed into a legal matter in which Davis was acting on behalf of the grievant's domestic partner, who also was a friend and a former client of Davis's. In the text message, Davis indicated that he was aware of the grievant's status as an "illegal alien"; threatened that he would call the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and have the grievant "picked up" if she refused to call him back; and advised the grievant that he was aware of her address.

Based on this text message, the State Bar filed a Formal Complaint against Davis alleging violations of Rules 1.6, 1.8 (b), 1.9 (c), and 3.1 (a) of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Rather than answer the complaint, Davis filed a petition for voluntary discipline admitting a violation only of Rule 3.1 (a) and requesting a public reprimand. After some discussions with the Bar, Davis amended his petition twice to add additional information about his prior disciplinary history and about the basis for his knowledge of the grievant's immigration status.

In his second amended petition, Davis, who became a member of the Bar in 1994, admitted that he was personal friends of the grievant's domestic partner; that he had consulted with that man regarding several business and family matters over the last 13 years; that he was aware that the grievant and her domestic partner had been involved in a long-term, tumultuous personal relationship and had a child together; that he represented the grievant in 2008 or 2009 in connection with a matter arising from a traffic accident; that he learned, through his social relationship with the grievant's domestic partner, that the grievant was an undocumented immigrant; that beginning in May 2018, after the domestic partner contacted him about an incident involving the grievant, he tried to contact her in an effort to amicably resolve the dispute, but was unsuccessful; that he subsequently became aware that the grievant alleged that the incident involved criminal violence against her by her domestic partner; that he still believed he could mediate the dispute between them; and that, toward that end and in an effort to have the grievant contact him, he sent her the above-described text message on behalf of the domestic partner. Davis admits that sending the text was impulsive, reckless, and inconsiderate, but avers that he did not intend to scare the grievant (although he concedes that in hindsight he "realize[s] how that text may've caused her emotional distress") and that he did not share the information contained in the text with anyone other than the grievant.

After considering the petition, the special master determined that the admitted facts were sufficient to authorize the conclusion that Davis committed a violation of Rule 3.1 (a) ("[A] lawyer shall not ... take ... action on behalf of a client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another."). The special master noted that Davis had asserted in his petition that he did not technically "represent" the domestic partner at the time he sent the text, but found that assertion to be at odds with the other evidence, including Davis's admission that he had consulted with the domestic partner on several business and...