LAW.coLAW.co

In THE MATTER OF JOHN L.G. HERBERT, JR. (Four Cases)

2024-10-01

Summary

Holding. The court disbarred John L.G. Herbert, Jr., ordering his removal from the rolls of attorneys authorized to practice in Georgia, with a mandatory condition that if he seeks reinstatement, he must pay restitution to the grievants for their losses.

John L.G. Herbert, Jr., an attorney with 30 years of experience, faced disciplinary proceedings based on 11 client grievances. Herbert accepted approximately $850,000 from overseas investors to hold and disburse funds but ceased communication with clients around November 2022 while maintaining outstanding balances. By failing to file a rejection notice, Herbert defaulted in the disciplinary process, which resulted in all factual allegations being deemed admitted.

The State Bar concluded Herbert violated multiple professional conduct rules governing client communication, fee agreements, trust account management, and fiduciary duties. The court found numerous aggravating factors, including dishonest conduct, a pattern of misconduct, multiple violations, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and exploitation of vulnerable clients who could not easily confront him. Herbert's clean disciplinary history was the only mitigating factor but was substantially outweighed by the aggravating circumstances.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Misappropriation and conversion of client funds held in trust
  • Failure to maintain proper trust account procedures
  • Abandonment of clients and cessation of communication
  • Default in disciplinary proceedings and admission of factual allegations
  • Appropriate sanction for pattern of trust account violations and client abandonment

Procedural posture

The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary notices seeking disbarment after Herbert defaulted by failing to file a notice of rejection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

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: October 1, 2024

S24Y0682, S24Y1175, S24Y1176, S24Y1177. IN THE MATTER

OF JOHN L.G. HERBERT, JR.

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court on Notices of

Discipline seeking the disbarment of John L.G. Herbert, Jr. (State

Bar No. 348226), on the basis of numerous alleged violations of the

Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (hereinafter, “GRPC”) related

to 11 client grievances. Because Herbert, who has been a member of

the Bar since 1994, failed to file a Notice of Rejection, he is in default,

has waived his right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such

discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by this

Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).

The facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Herbert’s default,

are as follows. The 11 grievants, or their associated LLCs, are

overseas investors in real property located in the U.S. The grievants

desired to have the proceeds of their investments and other deposits

held in the U.S. banking system and Herbert offered to receive, hold,

and disburse these funds. Herbert stopped responding to requests

for information and accountings from the grievants beginning

around November 2022, at which point each of the grievants had

outstanding balances with Herbert. The grievants collectively

reported losses of approximately $850,000 in funds that had been

entrusted to Herbert and were converted to his use.

As to each of the grievances, the Bar determined that Herbert

violated the following provisions of the GRPC: Rule 1.2 (a),1 Rule

1 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “a lawyer shall abide by a

client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representation and, as

required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which

they are to be pursued.”

2

1.4,2 Rule 1.5 (a),3 Rule 1.15 (I) (a),4 Rule 1.15 (I) (c),5 Rule 1.15 (I)

(d),6 Rule 1.15 (II) (a),7 Rule 1.15 (II) (b),8 Rule 1.15 (II) (c),9 Rule

2 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “a lawyer shall . . . keep the

client reasonably informed about the status of the matter . . . [and] promptly

comply with reasonable requests for information.”

3 This Rule provides that “[a] lawyer shall not make an agreement for,

charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for

expenses,” followed by a list of factors to be considered in determining

reasonableness.

4 This Rule provides that

A lawyer shall hold funds or other property of clients or third

persons that are in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a

representation separate from the lawyer’s own funds or other

property. Funds shall be kept in one or more separate accounts

maintained in an approved institution as defined by Rule 1.15 (III)

(c) (1). Other property shall be identified as such and appropriately

safeguarded. Complete records of such account funds and other

property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for a

period of six years after termination of the representation.

5 This Rule provides that

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

3

request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full

accounting regarding such property.

6 This Rule provides that

When in the course of representation a lawyer is in possession of

funds or other property in which both the lawyer and a client or a

third person claim interest, the property shall be kept separate by

the lawyer until there is an accounting and severance of their

interests. If a dispute arises concerning their respective interests,

the portion in dispute shall be kept separate by the lawyer until

the dispute is resolved. The lawyer shall promptly distribute all

portions of the funds or property as to which the interests are not

in dispute.

7 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll funds held by a lawyer

for a client and all funds held by a lawyer in any other fiduciary capacity shall

be deposited in and administered from a trust account.”

8 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o funds shall be

withdrawn from such trust accounts for the personal use of the lawyer

maintaining the account except earned lawyer’s fees debited against the

account of a specific client and recorded as such.”

9 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll client’s funds shall be

placed in either an interest-bearing account at an approved institution with

the interest being paid to the client or an interest-bearing (IOLTA) account at

an approved institution” and that “[f]unds in such an [] account shall be

available for withdrawal upon request and without delay, subject only to any

notice period which the institution is required to reserve by law or regulation.”

4

1.15 (III) (a),10 Rule 1.15 (III) (b),11 Rule 1.15 (III) (c),12 Rule 1.16

(d),13 Rule 8.4 (a) (4),14 and Rule 9.3.15 The maximum sanction for a

10 This Rule provides that

Every lawyer who practices law in Georgia and who receives

money or other property on behalf of a client or in any other

fiduciary capacity shall maintain, in an approved financial

institution as defined by this rule, a trust account or accounts,

separate from any business and personal accounts. Funds received

by the lawyer on behalf of a client or in any other fiduciary capacity

shall be deposited into this account. The financial institution shall

be in Georgia or in the state where the lawyer’s office is located, or

elsewhere with the written consent and at the written request of

the client or third person.

11 This Rule provides that

(1) A lawyer shall designate all trust accounts, whether general or

specific, as well as all deposit slips and checks drawn thereon, as

an “Attorney Trust Account,” “Attorney Escrow Account” “IOLTA

Account” or “Attorney Fiduciary Account.” The name of the

attorney or law firm responsible for the account shall also appear

on all deposit slips and checks drawn thereon.

(2) A lawyer shall designate all business accounts, as well as all

deposit slips and all checks drawn thereon, as a “Business

Account,” a “Professional Account,” an “Office Account,” a “General

Account,” a “Payroll Account,” “Operating Account” or a “Regular

Account.”

(3) Nothing in this rule shall prohibit a lawyer from using any

additional description or designation for a specific business or

trust account including fiduciary accounts maintained by the

lawyer as executor, guardian, trustee, receiver, agent or in any

other fiduciary capacity.

5

single violation of Rules 1.2, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.15 (II) (b), 1.15

(III), and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. The maximum sanction for a

single violation of Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (II) (c), 1.16 (d), and 9.3 is a

public reprimand.

As to aggravating and mitigating factors, the Bar concluded

that the following aggravating factors applied: a dishonest and

12 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] lawyer shall maintain

his or her trust account only in a financial institution approved by the State

Bar of Georgia, which shall annually publish a list of approved institutions.”

13 This Rule provides that

Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to

the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests,

such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for

employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to

which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of

fee that has not been earned.

14 This Rule provides that it shall be a violation of the GRPC for a lawyer

to “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

misrepresentation.”

15 This Rule provides that “[d]uring the investigation of a matter

pursuant to these Rules, the lawyer complained against shall respond to

disciplinary authorities in accordance with State Bar Rules.”

6

selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, the commission of multiple

offenses, a refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his

conduct, vulnerability on the part of the overseas victims because

they could not readily confront Herbert about his misconduct, and

Herbert’s substantial experience in the practice of law. ABA

Standard 9.22 (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i).16 The Bar determined that

Herbert’s lack of a prior disciplinary record was the only mitigating

factor, ABA Standard 9.32 (a), and that the aggravating factors

significantly outweighed the sole mitigating factor. The Bar thus

determined that the appropriate sanction in this matter is

disbarment, with a mandatory condition, if he seeks reinstatement,

that Herbert pay restitution to the grievants in the amounts of their

losses as set out in the Notices of Discipline.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is

the appropriate sanction in this matter and is consistent with

16 Although the Bar also considered Herbert’s obstruction of the

disciplinary process as an aggravating factor, “this Court will refrain from

recognizing this behavior as a factor in aggravation” because Herbert “has also

been charged with a violation of Rule 9.3 for similar conduct.” In the Matter of

Hardy, 316 Ga. 845, 852 n.16 (890 SE2d 770) (2023).

7

similar cases in which a lawyer abandons clients, violates the rules

related to trust accounts, and defaults during the disciplinary

process. See, e.g., In the Matter of Power, 314 Ga. 504 (877 SE2d 601)

(2022) (disbarring attorney who defaulted under notice of discipline

for abandonment of two clients and violations of trust account rules);

In the Matter of Proctor, 313 Ga. 637 (872 SE2d 691) (2022)

(disbarring attorney who defaulted under notice of discipline for

abandonment of three clients and violations of trust account rules);

In the Matter of Plumides, 311 Ga. 65 (855 SE2d 651) (2021)

(disbarring attorney who defaulted under notice of discipline and

who engaged in pattern of abandoning clients and violating trust

account rules). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of

John L.G. Herbert, Jr. be removed from the rolls of persons

authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. We also agree

with the Bar’s suggested imposition of a mandatory condition, if

Herbert seeks reinstatement, requiring him to pay restitution to the

grievants in the amounts of their losses as set out in the Notices of

8

Discipline. Herbert is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule

4-219 (b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

9