In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: May 11, 2015
S15Y1040. IN THE MATTER OF KIMBERLY L. COPELAND.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for voluntary
discipline filed by Respondent Kimberly L. Copeland (State Bar No. 186783),
pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (b) (2), in which she seeks to resolve two
grievances, both of which relate to her former representation of the same client,
arising from two traffic accidents involving the client that took place in
February and March of 2009. In her petition, Copeland admits that as to the
February accident, she violated Rules 1.3 and 1.16 (d) of the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct, and as to the March accident, she violated Rules 1.15 (I),
1.15 (II), and 5. 3 (b). See Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a
violation of Rule 1.16 is a public reprimand, and the maximum sanction for a
violation of Rules 1.3, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), and 5.3 is disbarment. Copeland
requests that the Court impose a suspension of six months on her ability to
practice law, with conditions for reinstatement.
In her petition, Copeland, who has been a member of the State Bar since
1996, admits that with regard to the February 2009 accident, she entered into a
contingency fee agreement with her client but informed him that she anticipated
difficulties in proving damages. Copeland sent a demand letter to the insurance
company for the other party to the accident, but the insurer declined to offer any
settlement amount. Copeland then declined to file a lawsuit on her client’s
behalf but neglected to communicate this decision to her client, who believed
that Copeland would continue to work on the matter. The client did not find out
about Copeland’s decision not to file suit until after the statute of limitations on
his claim had run.
As to the March 2009 accident, Copeland again entered into a contingent
fee relationship with her client, who also executed a power of attorney giving
Copeland authority to endorse checks related to the matter and to deduct her fees
and expenses. Copeland delegated the responsibility for communicating with
the client and the insurance company involved in that case to her paralegal,
whom Copeland directed and supervised. The paralegal spoke with the client,
informing him that Copeland would submit a demand letter for $50,000, the
relevant policy limit. The paralegal believed that the client consented to having
2
his claim settled for the policy limit, but the client maintains that he did not
authorize such a settlement. The insurer agreed to settle the claim for the policy
limit and sent a check for that amount, less payments already made to healthcare
providers, to Copeland. Copeland deposited the check into her trust account and
issued herself a check for the contingency fee of $17,550. Although Copeland
sought to have the client come in and sign the release to obtain the settlement
proceeds, because of an apparent miscommunication or lack of communication,
the client never signed the release.
The client later retained other counsel, who learned that Copeland had
settled the case without the client’s knowledge and demanded that Copeland
surrender the settlement money and her fee. Copeland sent a check for the
settlement funds, less her fee, to the other attorney, who refused the check and
returned it to Copeland. By the time Copeland filed her petition for voluntary
discipline, she had renounced her claim to any fee and delivered the full
settlement amount to the client. Copeland acknowledges mismanagement of the
funds in her trust account, over which she gave her office staff responsibility,
but she denies any dishonest or selfish motive and states that she is willing to
3
engage the State Bar’s Law Practice Management Program (“LPMP”) to make
recommendations for her firm.
Copeland acknowledges her Rules violations unconditionally and also
acknowledges that she received a formal letter of admonition in 2011 in an
unrelated disciplinary matter. In mitigation, Copeland cites her active
membership in the State Bar and numerous professional organizations, her good
reputation in the legal community, her active participation in her local
community, and her active involvement in her church. Copeland submitted with
her petition numerous affidavits from other attorneys attesting to her good
reputation and character. Copeland notes that during the time she represented
the client at issue, she was going through a divorce and is now a single mother
of three children. She expresses remorse and embarrassment for her conduct,
reiterates that she did not have a dishonest or selfish motive, notes that she made
a good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of her actions, states that she has
been cooperative toward the disciplinary process, and maintains that she
continues to have a good reputation in the legal community. In its response, the
State Bar agreed that a suspension would be appropriate.
4
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that acceptance of Copeland’s
petition for voluntary discipline is appropriate. Accordingly, we accept the
petition and direct that Kimberly L. Copeland be suspended from the practice
of law in the State of Georgia for six months. At the conclusion of the
suspension period, if Copeland wishes to seek reinstatement, she must offer
proof to the State Bar’s Office of General Counsel that she has complied with
the conditions for reinstatement imposed in connection with this suspension,
namely, that she has completed a consultation with the LPMP regarding trust
account procedures and complied with its recommendations. If the State Bar
agrees that 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.
Copeland is reminded of her duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).
Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Six-month suspension with
conditions for reinstatement. All the Justices concur.
5