In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: December 14, 2021
S22Y0046. IN THE MATTER OF JASON LEE VAN DYKE.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on Jason Lee Van
Dyke’s (State Bar No. 851693) Third Petition for Voluntary
Discipline. In his petition, Van Dyke again admits that he violated
Rule 8.4 (a) (3) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, found
at Bar Rule 4-102 (d), by virtue of his conviction of a misdemeanor
involving moral turpitude related to his fitness to practice law. The
maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (3) is disbarment.
After the State Bar initiated a disciplinary action against Van Dyke
pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106, Van Dyke filed his first Petition for
Voluntary Discipline, which sought discipline ranging from a public
reprimand to six months’ suspension. The State Bar opposed that
petition, and the Special Master, Daniel S. Reinhardt, rejected it, noting this Court’s general practice of rejecting proposed discipline
that ends prior to the completion of a criminal sentence. Van Dyke
next sought an indefinite suspension until such time as his criminal
sentence was discharged. The State Bar did not oppose that
proposed discipline, so long as the lifting of the suspension was
conditioned on Van Dyke’s providing satisfactory evidence of the
final release and discharge of his criminal sentence. The Special
Master then submitted a report and recommendation
recommending the acceptance of that proposed discipline under the
stated condition. But on April 5, 2021, we rejected Van Dyke’s
Second Petition for Voluntary Discipline. See In the Matter of Van
Dyke, 311 Ga. 199 (858 SE2d 194) (2021).
In that opinion, we noted that because of the posture of this
case, no hearing had yet been held before the Special Master. See id.
at 200. After recounting the somewhat complex factual background
leading up to this case, we stated, “We are also troubled by several
aspects of this case that, we believe, warrant additional factfinding.”
Id. at 202. Specifically, we noted that “Van Dyke’s conduct in the
2
criminal proceeding reflects a level of disrespect for the law and legal
process that warrants serious consideration” and that “beyond the
passing mention of these issues in Van Dyke’s petition, we know
nothing about the particulars of this conduct.” Id. We also noted that
it appeared that the Texas Bar had suspended Van Dyke for 12
months in an entirely separate matter; that it was unclear what
conduct gave rise to that sanction; that this Court was not made
aware of that sanction and that it was unclear whether Van Dyke
complied with his obligation under Rule 9.4 (b) of the Georgia Rules
of Professional Conduct as to that sanction; and that “[u]ntil that
question is answered, and this Court is apprised of the conduct
underlying that sanction, we are unable to make any determination
of an appropriate level of discipline in this case.” Id. at 203.
Therefore, we rejected Van Dyke’s second petition for voluntary
discipline and
remand[ed the matter] to the Special Master for
additional factfinding regarding (1) all disciplinary
proceedings involving Van Dyke, past or current and in
any jurisdiction, including but not limited to those giving
rise to Van Dyke’s March 2019 suspension by the Texas
3
Bar; (2) Van Dyke’s violation of his bond conditions in the
Texas criminal proceeding; (3) the basis for the forfeiture
by wrongdoing determination; and (4) any other matters
the Special Master deems relevant.
Id. (Citation omitted.)
Despite this Court’s opinion remanding this case for the
Special Master to make those findings of fact, on August 10, 2021,
Van Dyke filed his Third Petition for Voluntary Discipline, which he
amended on August 20, 2021. In his third petition, as amended, Van
Dyke again admits that he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (3) and requests
“discipline in the form of a suspension from the practice of law for
no more than thirty-six months nunc pro tunc to March 1, 2019 as a
resolution to both the pending proceeding under Rule 4-106 and all
matters for which he is subject to reciprocal discipline in Georgia.”
The State Bar responds by requesting this Court to permit the
Special Master to consider Van Dyke’s request for reciprocal
discipline along with the pending Rule 4-106 Petition in the first
instance, so that the Special Master may issue a single report and
recommendation on those matters for the consideration of this
4
Court. The State Bar also represents that the Special Master and
Van Dyke consent to its request.
We agree, and we therefore reject Van Dyke’s Third Petition
for Voluntary Discipline, as amended, and again remand to the
Special Master to make the additional, requisite factual findings
ordered in Van Dyke, 311 Ga. at 203, to include the resolution of any
matters of reciprocal discipline that the Special Master deems
appropriate.
Petition for voluntary discipline rejected. All the Justices concur.
5