In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: June 1, 2015
S15Y0968. IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM F. HEITMANN III.
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court on the petition of attorney William F.
Heitmann III (State Bar No. 343903) for voluntary discipline. In his petition,
Heitmann admits that he violated Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3, and
although the maximum penalty for such a violation is disbarment, he requests
a public reprimand as discipline in his case. The State Bar has responded that
acceptance of the petition would serve the public interest. We agree.
Heitmann has been a member of the State Bar since 2000, and according
to his petition, his practice mostly concerns the representation of personal injury
plaintiffs. He admits that, without his prior knowledge or consent, an
independent contractor employed by his law office contacted three individuals
who had just been involved in automobile accidents about Heitmann
representing them. These contacts were unsolicited, none of the prospective
clients having reached out to Heitmann before his contractor contacted them. In
each instance, the contractor met with the prospective client soon after the initial
contact. In two instances, the prospective clients agreed to be represented by
Heitmann, only later to terminate the representation. In the third instance, the
prospective client did not retain Heitmann. According to Heitmann, he only
became aware of the facts surrounding these contacts during the grievance
process. He determined that his contractor likely obtained the names and
telephone numbers of the prospective clients from a doctor, although he claims
to have no prior or specific knowledge of that fact. Upon learning of these
improper contacts, Heitmann terminated the contractor and severed any further
relationship with him. Heitmann later hired a more experienced investigator and
personally explained the relevant Bar rules to that investigator, stressing
specifically that no potential client can be contacted who has not sought advice
regarding employment of a lawyer.
Heitmann admits that he violated Rule 5.3 by failing to take reasonable
efforts to ensure that the individual who worked for him conducted himself in
accordance with the prohibition imposed on Heitmann by Rule 7.3 (d). In
mitigation, Heitmann notes that he has no prior disciplinary history, that he has
cooperated in these proceedings, that he had no dishonest or selfish motive, and
2
that he understands the important purpose of Rule 7.3 (d) to protect the public
and its perception of the legal profession. In addition, he states that he is deeply
remorseful that his conduct resulted in acts proscribed by Rule 7.3 (d). Based on
the above, Heitmann requests a public reprimand as discipline. The State Bar
has responded, noting in aggravation that Heitmann has significant experience
in the practice of law, but stating that acceptance of his petition nevertheless
would serve the public interest.
Having reviewed the petition and response, we agree that imposition of
a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction in this matter, and we therefore
accept the petition for voluntary discipline. Accordingly, the Court hereby
orders that William F. Heitmann III receive a public reprimand in accordance
with Bar Rules 4-102 (b) (3) and 4-220 (c) for his violations of Rule 5.3.
Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Public reprimand. All the
Justices concur.
3