295 Ga. 220
FINAL COPY
S14Y0892. IN THE MATTER OF ERIC C. LANG.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a second petition for
voluntary discipline filed by Eric C. Lang (State Bar No. 435515), who now
seeks a 24-month suspension to run concurrently to the existing 12-month
suspension that this Court imposed following his filing of an earlier petition for
voluntary discipline involving a different matter. See In the Matter of Lang, 292
Ga. 894 (741 SE2d 152) (2013). The Court rejected Lang’s first petition
addressing the misconduct involved in this matter, which sought a six-month
suspension consecutive to his existing suspension. See In the Matter of Lang,
294 Ga. 482, 482 (754 SE2d 365) (2014).
According to the current petition, Lang, who was admitted to the Bar in
1990, represented a client who had been sued on a note. Summary judgment
was granted against the client in 2012 on all issues except damages. On May 1,
2013, while Lang’s petition for voluntary discipline in the prior matter was
pending in this Court, there was a final hearing on damages and judgment was
entered against the client. Lang did not tell the client about the hearing or the
judgment. When this Court imposed its suspension on Lang on May 6, 2013,
he informed his client of the suspension, but he still did not tell the client about
the unfavorable judgment. The client first learned of the judgment in July 2013,
when he received a notice of garnishment. When asked for an explanation,
Lang finally disclosed the result of the May 1 hearing.
Lang admits that by this conduct he violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The
maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 1.3 is disbarment, and the maximum
sanction for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public reprimand.
In mitigation, Lang offers that he was experiencing emotional problems
during the relevant time, including continuing treatment for bipolar disorder and
major depressive disorder. He states that he has completed Ridgeview
Institute’s year-long impaired professionals program and that his treatment is
ongoing and involves adjustments to medication, which adjustments are not yet
complete, and that although he has been in intensive treatment since October
2012, he did not experience longer term stability until October 2013. Lang also
submits that he has attempted to mitigate any damages to his client by arranging
and paying for substitute counsel and by assisting substitute counsel within the
2
bounds permitted by his suspension, providing an affidavit in support of the
client’s motion for out-of-time appeal and conducting research related to the
garnishment action that uncovered an underlying error that should lead to
significant financial benefit to his client. Lang further states that he has
otherwise exhibited good character, integrity, and reputation, and is deeply
remorseful and has apologized to his client. He also notes that while he can
apply for reinstatement as early as May 6, 2014, the current suspension is
actually indefinite, continuing until such time as he can receive certification that
he is mentally fit to practice law, and he does not intend to seek reinstatement
in May 2014.
Lang consents to a suspension of 24 months to run concurrently from the
start date of his existing suspension, May 6, 2013. He asks that his
reinstatement be conditioned upon a finding by a licensed psychologist or
psychiatrist that he is mentally competent to practice law; that for a three-year
period following the termination of his suspension, his continued active status
be conditioned upon a quarterly report to the Committee on Lawyer Impairment
that he is mentally competent to practice law; and that he execute a waiver of
confidentiality with respect to the State Bar’s Office of the General Counsel and
3
his psychologist or psychiatrist for the Committee on Lawyer Impairment. He
also acknowledges the serious errors he made.
The Bar requests that the Court accept the petition, stating that an
extension of Lang’s current suspension for one year, with the conditions
suggested, is appropriate to protect the public and to allow Lang to address his
mental health issues. The Bar also notes that Lang received an Investigative
Panel reprimand in 2008.
Having considered the matter fully, we agree that a suspension is the
appropriate sanction. The suspension cannot be made retroactive to May 6,
2013, as Lang suggests, because he has not demonstrated that it is properly
entered nunc pro tunc.
[W]hen an attorney requests entry of a suspension or voluntary
surrender order nunc pro tunc, it is the lawyer’s responsibility to
demonstrate that [he] voluntarily stopped practicing law, the date on
which [his] law practice ended, and that [he] complied with all the
ethical obligations implicated in such a decision, such as assisting
clients in securing new counsel and facilitating the transfer of client
files and critical information about ongoing cases to new counsel.
In re Onipede, 288 Ga. 156, 157 (702 SE2d 136) (2010) (emphasis added).
Lang did not stop practicing law voluntarily on May 6, 2013, but rather was
required to do so by this Court’s order. See In the Matter of Mathis, 288 Ga.
4
548, 549-550 (705 SE2d 158) (2011) (Nahmias, J., dissenting) (explaining that
entering a suspension order nunc pro tunc is not appropriate when the lawyer
stopped practicing law as a result of a suspension). Lang also has not shown
that by May 6, 2013, he had complied with the ethical obligation to facilitate the
transfer of the case at issue here. To the contrary, Lang’s misconduct in this
case was still ongoing as of the date on which he suggests we should say that he
was suspended for that misconduct, since he did not inform his client of the
adverse judgment until his client inquired about the garnishment imposed in
July 2013.
However, the discipline proposed by Lang in his petition would make his
new suspension run for one year beyond May 6, 2014, and an additional one-
year suspension is the discipline the Bar recommends. Considering all of the
circumstances, we agree that such a suspension is appropriate, and we hereby
order that Eric C. Lang be suspended from the practice of law for 12 months, to
begin on May 6, 2014 and with the conditions on reinstatement set forth above.
At the conclusion of the suspension imposed in this matter, if Lang wishes to
seek reinstatement, he must offer proof to the State Bar’s Office of General
Counsel that the above conditions have been met. If the State Bar agrees that
5
the conditions have been met, it will submit a notice of compliance to this Court,
and this Court will issue an order granting or denying reinstatement. Lang is
reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).
Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Twelve-month suspension with
conditions. All the Justices concur.
Decided May 19, 2014.
Suspension.
Peters, Rubin & Sheffield, Robert G. Rubin, for Lang.
Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman,
Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.
6