In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: February 16, 2015
S15Y0021. IN THE MATTER OF RODD WALTON.
S15Y0022. IN THE MATTER OF RODD WALTON.
PER CURIAM.
These disciplinary matters are before the Court on two Notices of
Discipline filed by the State Bar against Respondent Rodd Walton (State Bar
No. 736490). Each notice charged Walton with violating multiple provisions of
the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4- 102 (d). The State
Bar seeks Walton’s disbarment, and we agree that disbarment is the appropriate
discipline in these cases.
Walton, who only provided a post office box address to the State Bar’s
Membership Department, failed to acknowledge service within twenty days of
the Notices of Discipline having been mailed to his post office box.
Accordingly, he was properly served by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203
(b) (3) (ii). He failed to file Notices of Rejection and therefore is in default, has
no right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline as may be
determined by this Court, see Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).
S15Y0021
By virtue of his default, Walton admits that a client retained him in 2012
for representation regarding the investigation of a second mortgage on property
awarded to the client’s ex-wife in a divorce. The client paid Walton a fee of
$1,000 for that task. Walton failed to provide any documentation to indicate that
he performed the work. Nevertheless, in July and August 2012, the client paid
Walton additional fees totaling $11,600. Those fees were for representation
regarding a contempt action against the client, except that $5,000 was to be
placed in escrow for use in hiring an attorney in North Carolina, if necessary, on
a probate matter. No funds were paid to the attorney in North Carolina as his
services were not needed. In November 2012, the client provided a cashier’s
check in the amount of $24,000 to Walton that was to be used as follows:
$15,000 was to be paid to an opposing party to obtain the release of an
automobile that was in dispute in civil litigation; $7,000 was to be paid to the
client’s ex-wife to resolve contempt issues; and $2,000 was for additional
attorney fees to Walton. Walton did not appear for the final contempt hearing,
and the client was incarcerated for failing to pay the $15,000 per a prior consent
2
order. Walton has failed to account for the funds that were provided to him to
be paid to other parties, and has converted those funds to his own use. Walton
has not responded to the Investigative Panel in this matter. He appears to have
abandoned his law practice and has not provided the State Bar with his current
address. The Bar submits that this conduct violates Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I)
and (II), and 9.3.
S15Y0022
By virtue of his default, Walton admits that a client retained him in 2010
to represent her regarding a June 2010 automobile accident in which she
suffered injuries. Walton sent a demand letter to the insurer in May 2011,
itemizing special damages in the amount of $97,086.26 and demanding
settlement in the amount of $320,384.06. In July 2011 the client signed a limited
release for settlement in the amount of $25,000, but she had no further
substantive communication from Walton despite her repeated efforts to contact
him by telephone, e-mail and mail. Walton did not provide the client with any
information as to his receipt of the settlement proceeds or the disbursement of
such proceeds, and he did not communicate with her regarding the status of his
efforts to seek compensation under her underinsured motorist coverage. The
3
client has not received any settlement proceeds, and her medical bills have not
been paid. In March 2014, the client sent a letter to Walton terminating the
representation and requesting her file, but received no response. Walton has not
responded to the Investigative Panel in this matter and, as noted above, appears
to have abandoned his law practice. The Bar submits that this conduct violates
Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I), 1.16, and 9.3.
Although the Investigative Panel admits that Walton has no prior
disciplinary history, it asserts that disbarment is warranted because Walton acted
willfully and dishonestly in abandoning the legal matters entrusted to him, and
in converting fiduciary funds and/or settlement proceeds to his own use. It also
argues that disbarment is warranted because these two matters demonstrate a
pattern of misconduct.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that disbarment is the
appropriate sanction in these matters. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the
name of Rodd Walton be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to
practice law in the State of Georgia. Walton is reminded of his duties pursuant
to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
4