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: May 28, 2025
S25Y0207. IN THE MATTER OF NATHANIEL WATSON
COCHRAN.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and
recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board (the
“Review Board”), which reviewed the report and recommendation of
the Special Master, Patrick H. Head, at the request of Nathaniel
Watson Cochran (State Bar No. 172515), who has been a member of
the State Bar since 2002. The Special Master concluded that
Cochran, who is in default, violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Georgia
Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC” or the “Rules”) found in Bar
Rule 4-102 (d) and recommended a one-year suspension based on his
abandonment of a single client (hereinafter the “Grievant”). A
maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.3 is disbarment, while
the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public
reprimand. The Review Board purported to adopt the Special
Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but recommends
that Cochran receive a six-month suspension. Cochran has not filed
any exceptions to the Review Board’s report, and the matter is now
ripe for this Court’s consideration. Having reviewed the record, and
for the reasons discussed below, we reject that recommendation of
the Review Board and, instead, agree with the Special Master that
a one-year suspension is warranted.
A. Procedural History.
The record shows that in August 2023, the State Bar filed a
formal complaint against Cochran for violating Rules 1.3 and 1.4. A
Special Master was appointed, and while Cochran acknowledged
service of the Formal Complaint and the appointment of a Special
Master, he did not otherwise respond and file an answer, or request
an extension of time to file an answer. Accordingly, the State Bar
filed a motion for default, which was granted in January 2024. After
the Special Master emailed a copy of the proposed final report and
2
recommendation to the State Bar, counsel for the State Bar
contacted the Special Master, indicating that he had been in
communication with Cochran and that there might be mitigating
circumstances in the case. Thereafter, Cochran emailed the Special
Master and included a release showing that he had paid the
Grievant $7,750 as full settlement for any claims she had against
him, despite being advised that if he wanted a hearing on mitigation
evidence, he should file a motion. Nevertheless, a hearing was held
on mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and both the
Grievant and Cochran testified. The Special Master then issued his
final report and recommendation.
B. Special Master’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
By default, Cochran admitted to the following findings of fact.
Cochran agreed to represent the Grievant, on April 24, 2020,
regarding a dispute she had with a contractor she had hired for
home construction matters. Cochran was paid $4,500 as a retainer.
He advised the Grievant that he would send a demand letter to the
contractor, and if necessary, file a lawsuit against the contractor.
3
Cochran then prepared the letter and had the Grievant review it.
However, a copy of the letter purportedly sent to the contractor was
not provided to the Grievant. Two months later, Cochran told the
Grievant that the contractor had failed to respond to the demand
letter and that he would file suit against the contractor in the next
few days. When the Grievant attempted to contact Cochran for
information related to the case, he failed to respond.
In May 2021, Cochran admitted to the Grievant that he had
still not filed the lawsuit but would do so within the next month.
However, the Grievant has never received a copy of the purportedly
filed lawsuit and when she again attempted to contact Cochran for
updates regarding the status of her case, those requests for
information were ignored. In October 2021, the Grievant terminated
Cochran from his representation of her. She then repeatedly asked
Cochran to refund the retainer that was paid to him in 2020, but
Cochran neither provided the refund nor an accounting of the
retainer fee. Cochran also failed to provide the Grievant with a copy
of her file. The Grievant then had to file a civil action against
4
Cochran to recover the unearned fees she paid Cochran as well as
the attorney fees incurred.
Based on Cochran’s conduct, the Special Master concluded that
he violated Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client) and Rule 1.4 (a) (lawyer shall
reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the
client’s objectives are to be accomplished; keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the matter; and promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information).
C. Consideration of the ABA Standards and Recommendation
of Discipline.
The Special Master turned to the ABA Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions of the American Bar Association, which this Court
uses for guidance to decide the appropriate level of discipline. See
In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996). In
particular, the Special Master noted that ABA Standard 3.0
provides that a court should consider the duty violated, the lawyer’s
mental state, the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s
5
misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating
circumstances. The Special Master then concluded that under ABA
Standard 4.42, a suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer
fails to perform services for a client or engages in a pattern of neglect
that causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.
As for mitigation, the Special Master considered that there was
nothing to suggest that Cochran had a dishonest or selfish motive;
rather, he just ignored and abandoned his client. At the hearing on
mitigation and aggravation, Cochran testified that at the time of
representation, he contracted Covid-19 and that his father and
father-in-law had also contracted the virus, and that because of
trying to help them and himself, it became difficult to get everything
done for which he was responsible.
In terms of aggravation, the Special Master concluded that
Cochran had a prior disciplinary offense in the form of a Letter of
Admonition in 2023 for violations of Rules 1.3 and 1.4, and that this
showed a pattern of misconduct. Moreover, the Special Master found
that Cochran had substantial experience in the practice of law, given
6
he has been a member of the State Bar since 2002, and he served as
an Assistant Magistrate Judge from 2018 to 2023. Finally, the
Special Master found that he failed to comply in these disciplinary
proceedings, given he did not respond to the Formal Complaint after
acknowledging service. The Special Master also found it concerning
that Cochran testified, “he did not know what to do when he received
the Motion for Default, and so did nothing.”
The Special Master then noted that in prior, similar cases, this
Court has imposed a six-month suspension. See In the Matter of
Lewis, 313 Ga. 695 (872 SE2d 693) (2022) (accepting petition for
voluntary discipline and imposing six-month suspension for
violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 (d) in three separate matters,
where attorney presented mitigating evidence, including
cooperation with disciplinary proceedings); In the Matter of Kirby,
312 Ga. 341 (862 SE2d 550) (2021) (accepting fourth petition for
voluntary discipline and imposing six-month suspension for
violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 in four separate matters,
where attorney offered mitigating evidence including that he had
7
taken steps to address mental health and practice management
problems that led to his misconduct); In the Matter of Johnson, 303
Ga. 795 (815 SE2d 55) (2018) (accepting petition for voluntary
discipline and imposing a six-month suspension for violating Rules
1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.15 (I), 1.16 (d) and 5.5 in seven separate matters,
where there were significant mitigating circumstances); In the
Matter of Huggins, 291 Ga. 92 (727 SE2d 500) (2012) (accepting
petition for voluntary discipline and imposing six-month suspension
for violations of Rules 1.3, 14., 1.15 (I) and (II), 1.16, and 9.3 in
connection with five client matters, where significant mitigating
circumstances existed); In the Matter of Graziano, 299 Ga. 7 (785
SE2d 537) (2016) (accepting petition for voluntary discipline and
imposing six-month suspension for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, and
1.16).
In the instant case, the Special Master recognized that
Cochran committed fewer violations of the GRPC than did the
attorneys in the cases cited, but noted that in those cases the
attorneys admitted culpability, cooperated with the disciplinary
8
authorities, offered mitigating evidence, filed petitions for voluntary
discipline, and expressed remorse. Here, the Grievant had to file a
civil action to recover restitution, there was very little mitigation
offered, Cochran only partially cooperated with the disciplinary
authorities, he only expressed remorse at the mitigation and
aggravation hearing, and he failed to respond to the Formal
Complaint and the Motion for Default. Therefore, considering all the
facts and circumstances, the relevant ABA Standards, the Rule
violations, and this Court’s precedent, the Special Master
recommended that Cochran receive a one-year suspension. In doing
so, the Special Master recognized that this was a longer suspension
than in Johnson, supra – the most egregious of the cases cited above
– but there Johnson filed a petition for voluntary discipline and
there were significant mitigating circumstances. In sum, the
Special Master was of the opinion that recommending a six-month
suspension would be unjust considering what the other attorneys
did in addressing the grievances filed against them for violations of
the GRPC, and that attorneys should do all that is possible to
9
demonstrate their understanding of just how important a grievance
is against them.
D. Cochran’s Exceptions and the State Bar’s Response.
Cochran filed exceptions to the Special Master’s report and
requested review by the Review Board. He generally contended that
while he abandoned his client, his successful efforts at coming to a
settlement with the Grievant together with his remorse suggested
that a six-month suspension with conditions that he complete a Law
Practice Management audit and comply with its recommendations
and that he complete an appropriate CLE course of study on the
lawyer’s duty to the client was the appropriate level of discipline.
The State Bar responded that it maintained its position that a
six-month suspension would be appropriate but disagreed that a
one-year suspension would be excessive. The State Bar pointed out
that with respect to abandonment cases, this Court has imposed
sanctions ranging from reprimand to disbarment. See, e.g., In the
Matter of Moore, 303 Ga. 296 (811 SE2d 343) (2018) (on notice of
discipline, disbarring attorney who was in default and abandoned
10
six clients and demonstrated pattern of misconduct); In the Matter
of Jones-Lewis, 287 Ga. 581 (697 SE2d 836) (2010) (on petition for
voluntary discipline, imposing a review panel reprimand on lawyer
who abandoned eight clients). See also In the Matter of Golub, 313
Ga. 686 (872 SE2d 699) (2022) (on special master’s report and
recommendation, imposing a one-year suspension with condition to
repay client, for attorney who charged a fee of $7,500 and then
delayed and abandoned client’s matter).
E. Review Board’s Report and Recommendation.
After a review of the record and evidence presented, the Review
Board concluded that the Special Master’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law were supported by the record. The Review Board
then agreed with the Special Master’s analysis of the ABA
Standards, including his analysis of the mitigating factors that
apply to Cochran. The Review Board also agreed with the Special
Master that the Letter of Admonition for the same offenses could
show a pattern of misconduct, and that Cochran had substantial
experience in law, which were both aggravating factors.
11
Regarding the recommendation of discipline, the Review Board
noted that the Special Master found that this case is distinguishable
from all of the cases it cited, because the Grievant in this case had
to file a lawsuit against Cochran to be reimbursed and the lawyers
in those other cases all admitted culpability, cooperated with the
disciplinary process, offered mitigating evidence, filed petitions for
voluntary discipline, and expressed remorse. However, here, the
Review Board found that the record was clear that Cochran
admitted culpability, cooperated with the disciplinary process,
offered mitigating evidence, paid restitution to the Grievant, and
expressed remorse. The Review Board did not consider Cochran’s
default based on his initial failure to respond in the disciplinary
proceedings as an aggravating factor. Accordingly, the Review
Board recommended that Cochran be given a six-month suspension
from the practice of law and undergo a Law Practice Management
Assessment as approved by the State Bar within six months
following reinstatement.
F. Analysis and Conclusion.
12
Cochran did not file any exceptions in this Court. Therefore,
the matter is now ripe for this Court’s consideration. Having
reviewed the record and evidence provided in this case, we conclude
that a one-year suspension is the more appropriate discipline in this
case. We agree with the Review Board that Cochran’s default based
on his failure to respond to the Formal Complaint and Motion for
Default is not, in and of itself, an aggravating factor. Nevertheless,
Cochran indisputably violated two provisions of the GRPC, one that
carries disbarment as a sanction; and he has prior disciplinary
history and substantial experience in the practice of law, both
aggravating factors. Moreover, given that his former client had to
file a lawsuit against him in order to be reimbursed, it certainly
cannot be said that Cochran made a good faith effort to rectify the
harm caused by his misconduct or that he took full responsibility for
his actions. See In the Matter of Melnick, 319 Ga. 730, 738-739 (905
SE2d 645) (2024) (concluding that “[attorney’s] payment of money to
his client [was] not a mitigating factor because he did not make any
good faith effort to make restitution or rectify the consequences of
13
his actions until after his client hired new counsel to investigate a
malpractice claim and had filed a grievance with the Bar”).
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and evidence presented in
these proceedings, Cochran is hereby suspended for one-year from
the practice of law. See In the Matter of Golub, 313 Ga. at 694-695
(on special master’s report and recommendation, imposing a oneyear suspension with condition to repay client, for attorney who
charged a fee of $7,500 and then delayed and abandoned client’s
matter). See, e.g., In the Matter of Jackson, Case No. S25Y0221, (___
SE2d ___) (Mar. 4, 2025) (on special master’s report and
recommendation, disbarring attorney who abandoned a single
client, violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, and 1.4 (a), and had no prior
disciplinary history); In the Matter of Blain, 315 Ga. 475 (883 SE2d
315) (2023) (on notice of discipline, disbarring attorney who
abandoned a single client, committed violations of Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3,
1.4, and 3.2, and had no prior disciplinary history). After this
passage of time, there is no need for Cochran to take any action
either through the State Bar or through this Court to effectuate his
14
return to the practice of law. However, we also recommend that
Cochran utilize the State Bar’s Law Practice Management Program
and other resources designed to prevent a future failure to meet the
professional obligations of a Georgia lawyer. Cochran is also
reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
One-year suspension. Peterson, CJ, Warren, PJ, and Bethel,
Ellington, McMillian, LaGrua, Colvin, and Pinson, JJ, concur.
15