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 6, 2025
S25Y0424. IN THE MATTER OF SANJAY PATEL.
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 4-214. In the report, the Special Master recommends that Sanjay
Patel (State Bar No. 141477), who has been a member of the Bar since
2004, be disbarred for his violations of Rule 1.15 (I) (c)1 of the Georgia
Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Neither
Patel nor the Bar sought review by the Review Board or filed
exceptions to the Special Master’s report. Accordingly, this matter is
1 Rule 1.15 (I) (c) states, “Upon receiving funds or other property in which
a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the
client or third person. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by
law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the
client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.”
now ripe for this Court’s review and having reviewed the record in this
matter, we agree with the Special Master that disbarment is
warranted.
By way of background, in November 2021, the State Bar issued a
formal complaint against Patel, alleging that he violated Rule 1.15 (I)
(c). The Special Master was appointed by this Court, and Patel filed an
answer to the Formal Complaint. However, Patel then failed to
respond to the State Bar’s interrogatories, document requests, and
requests for admissions, and he failed to comply with the State Bar’s
two orders compelling him to respond to the discovery requests. As a
sanction for his complete failure to respond to the discovery requests
and orders to comply, the Special Master struck Patel’s answer and
ordered that the allegations in the Formal Complaint be deemed
admitted based on Patel’s “intentional[] and willful[]” failure to
respond to the discovery requests. Following a hearing on the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances and to determine the
appropriate level of discipline, the Special Master issued her report
and recommendation.
According to the Special Master’s report, the facts as deemed
2
admitted are as follows. Patel represented a lender in a re-financing
real estate transaction, in which the Grievant was the borrower. On
May 24, 2019, the lender wired $469,571.59 to Patel’s attorney escrow
account to be used to pay off the Grievant’s existing mortgages on the
subject property. However, Patel failed to pay off all existing
mortgages and failed to remit or account for some or all of the escrowed
funds. Patel stole at least $235,565.62 of the Grievant’s money held in
Patel’s attorney escrow account. Patel failed to provide an accounting
of the funds he held in connection with the re-financing real estate
transaction.2 The Special Master also found that Patel previously
received an Investigative Panel Reprimand on July 11, 2024, based on
his misconduct in a similar real estate transaction.
The Special Master concluded that, based upon Patel’s
misconduct, he violated Rule 1.15 (I) (c) by (1) failing to properly
distribute the funds he received in connection with the closing
transaction; (2) allowing the funds to disappear from his IOLTA
2 Additionally, at the hearing on this matter, Patel admitted that he
received the funds at issue into his IOLTA account but the funds subsequently
“disappeared.”
3
account; and (3) stealing at least $235,565.62 of the Grievant’s money
held in Patel’s attorney escrow account. The maximum penalty for a
violation of Rule 1.15 (I) (c) is disbarment.
The Special Master looked to the ABA Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Discipline (“ABA Standards”) for guidance in determining the
appropriate sanction in this matter. See In the Matter of Morse, 266
Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996). In this regard, the Special Master
concluded that the duty implicated by Patel’s violations of Rule 1.15 (I)
(c) is the duty that lawyers owe as professionals to protect and preserve
the property of third parties entrusted to the lawyer in connection with
a representation. See ABA Standard 7.0. As for Patel’s mental state,
the Special Master concluded that Patel admitted he stole at least
$235,565.62 of the Grievant’s money held in Patel’s escrow account,
which was an intentional act. As for injuries, the Special Master
concluded that the Grievant suffered actual, serious injury from
Patel’s theft, and that lawyers like Patel who steal money from their
clients injure the reputation of the entire profession. On this basis, the
Special Master concluded that disbarment was the presumptive
sanction here because disbarment is appropriate whenever a lawyer
4
knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a
professional, with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or
another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, the
public, or the legal system. See ABA Standard 7.1.
In terms of aggravating circumstances, the Special Master
concluded that Patel had (1) a prior disciplinary offense in the form of
an Investigative Panel Reprimand in 2014, see ABA Standard 9.22 (a);
(2) a dishonest or selfish motive, see ABA Standard 9.22 (b); (3)
substantial experience in the practice of law, as he was admitted to the
State Bar in 2004, see ABA Standard 9.22 (i); and (4) indifference to
making restitution, given that Patel testified that he had “reached out
to the grievant . . . to give restitution,” but had not actually paid any
restitution to date, see ABA Standard 9.22 (j). The Special Master
then found that there were no mitigating circumstances. At the
hearing, Patel stated that he “had substance abuse issues,” but as the
Special Master noted, Patel did not try to establish a causal link
between his substance abuse issues and his misconduct as an attorney.
After considering the ABA standards and the applicable
mitigating and aggravating circumstances in this matter, the Special
5
Master concluded that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this
case. The Special Master further concluded that this sanction was in
line with this Court’s precedent. See In the Matter of Cheatham, 304
Ga. 645, 646 (820 SE2d 668) (2018) (disbarring attorney on special
master’s report and recommendation for, among other things,
converting funds from a real estate transaction to his own use); In the
Matter of Weber, 266 Ga. 883, 885 (471 SE2d 864) (1996) (upon
recommendation of investigative panel, disbarring attorney who closed
real estate transaction but failed to deliver funds to the grievant; had
extensive experience in the practice of law; failed to respond to
disciplinary authorities; and engaged in egregious and repetitive
conduct given he committed similar acts in two other transactions).
Accordingly, the Special Master recommended that Patel be disbarred.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the Special
Master that disbarment is warranted under these circumstances for
Patel’s violations of Rule 1.15 (I) (c). See Cheatham, 304 Ga. at 645.
See also In the Matter of Harris, 301 Ga. 378, 379 (801 SE2d 39) (2017)
(on special master’s report and recommendation, disbarring attorney
who misappropriated trust funds in the course of his real estate
6
practice and violated Rules 1.15 (I) and 1.15 (II)). No readmission will
be considered without full restitution having been made by Patel. See
In the Matter of Davis, 316 Ga. 30, 42 (885 SE2d 771) (2023) (on Review
Board’s report and recommendation, conditioning readmission of
disbarred attorney upon full payment of judgment entered against him
based on his misconduct in handling a probate matter). Accordingly, it
is hereby ordered that the name of Sanjay Patel be removed from the
rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Patel
is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
Disbarred. Peterson, CJ, Warren, PJ, and Bethel, Ellington,
McMillian, LaGrua, Colvin, and Pinson, JJ, concur.
7