NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: December 20, 2024
S25Y0078. IN THE MATTER OF WENDY R. BARNES.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation of Special Master Chong J. Kim, filed pursuant to
Bar Rule 4-106 (e). The Special Master recommends that we disbar
Respondent Wendy R. Barnes1 (State Bar No. 744854), because her
three felony convictions violate Rule 8.4 (a) (2)2 of the Georgia Rules
of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d).
Barnes has not excepted to the recommendation. See Bar Rule 4-218.
1 Barnes is also known as Wendy R. Webb.
2 Rule 8.4 (a) (2) provides that “[i]t shall be a violation of the [GRPC] for
a lawyer to . . . be convicted of a felony.”
We agree that disbarment is appropriate given the facts of this
case.
The record shows that in January 2022, Barnes entered a
guilty plea in the Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia to two
counts of felony obstruction of a law enforcement officer – both
counts for resisting arrest – and one count of felony aggravated
battery, for injuring one of the arresting officers.3 The superior court
sentenced Barnes pursuant to the First Offender Act to a total of ten
years to serve one. Upon learning of Barnes’s conviction, the State
Bar filed a petition to initiate disciplinary proceedings pursuant to
Bar Rule 4-106 (establishing a shortened timeframe for disciplinary
proceedings based on an attorney’s conviction of a crime); this Court
appointed a Special Master; and the Bar personally served Barnes
with the petition and the order of appointment.
Although Barnes was consulted about, and notified of, the date
of the show cause hearing, she failed to appear. At the hearing, the
3 Barnes also pleaded guilty to failure to maintain lane and driving under
the influence, both misdemeanors, which we do not consider here.
Bar introduced a certified copy of the convictions and introduced
other documents from the underlying criminal case. Thereafter, the
Special Master issued her Report and Recommendation,
determining that Barnes received proper notice and had actual
knowledge of the hearing, and that Barnes was afforded due process
regarding this matter. The Special Master concluded that the Bar
had established the three felony convictions, and ruled that because
of those convictions, Barnes violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2), for which the
maximum penalty is disbarment.
The Special Master further concluded that Barnes’s
convictions for felony obstruction and aggravated battery involved
the “violent criminal act” of obstructing law enforcement officers “in
the lawful discharge of [their] official duties,” which includes as a
“necessary element” intentional interference “with the
administration of justice,” and which resulted in “actual physical
injury” to one of the officers. Therefore, the Special Master
determined that the presumptive penalty for Barnes’s conduct was
disbarment. See ABA Standard 5.11 (disbarment generally
appropriate when a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a
necessary element of which includes intentional interference with
the administration of justice).4
The Special Master considered, in aggravation of penalty, that
Barnes had substantial experience in the practice of law. See ABA
Standard 9.22 (i). The Special Master considered, in mitigation of
penalty, the absence of a prior disciplinary history and the absence
of evidence of a dishonest or selfish motive. See ABA Standards 9.32
(a) and (b). Considering these additional factors, the Special Master
concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for
Barnes’s violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2).
Neither party requested review by the Review Board or filed
exceptions to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation.
Therefore, the matter is ripe for this Court’s consideration.
4 This Court looks “to the [ABA’s] standards for guidance in determining
the appropriate sanction to impose,” and “[a]mong the factors to consider are
the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the injury caused by the lawyer’s
misconduct, and the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors.” In the
Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996).
“[D]isbarment is considered the typical level of discipline
imposed in cases like this one[,] involving violent felonies[.]” In re
Ortman, 289 Ga. 130, 131 (709 SE2d 764) (2011) (citation omitted).
See In re Collins, 263 Ga. 185, 185-186 (429 SE2d 908) (1993)
(disbarring for conviction of one count of aggravated assault).
Compare In the Matter of Hawbaker, 314 Ga. 77, 78 (872 SE2d 690)
(2022) (accepting voluntary surrender of a bar license for violating
Rule 8.4 (a) (2) following guilty pleas to five felony counts of
aggravated assault of a police officer). 5
Likewise, disbarment is an appropriate sanction in matters
involving felony convictions for crimes of interference with the
administration of justice, in this case felony obstruction of police.
See In the Matter of Hutto, 292 Ga. 556, 556 (739 SE2d 385) (2013)
(disbarring for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (2) based on a federal felony
conviction for withholding information on a crime). Compare In Re
5 Voluntary surrender of a law license “is tantamount to disbarment.” In
the Matter of Van Johnson, 319 Ga. 627, 632 (4) (905 SE2d 625) (2024) (citation
omitted)
Gardner, 286 Ga. 623, 624 (690 SE2d 611) (2010) (accepting
voluntary surrender of license for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (3) based on
misdemeanor obstruction of police by giving false information to the
GBI during an interview). Having reviewed the record, which we
again note contains no argument or evidence from Barnes, we agree
with the Special Master that disbarment is the appropriate sanction
here. Accordingly, we hereby order that the name of Wendy R.
Barnes be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice
law in the State of Georgia. Barnes is reminded of her duties
pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.