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: April 19, 2022
S22Y0440. IN THE MATTER OF TIFFINI COLETTE BELL
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the
report and recommendation issued by Special Master LaRae Dixon
Moore, who recommends that Tiffini Colette Bell (State Bar No.
676971) be disbarred for her violations of a variety of the Georgia
Rules of Professional Conduct in conjunction with her
representation of a client in a dispossessory action. The State Bar
filed a formal complaint, and Bell answered. Discovery proceeded,
and the Bar then moved for partial summary judgment. Bell did not
respond to the Bar’s motion. No hearing having been requested, the
Special Master considered the record and entered an order granting
the Bar’s motion for partial summary judgment. Shortly thereafter,
the Special Master entered her report and recommendation,
recommending Bell’s disbarment.
The Special Master found the following facts to be established
by the record, and we agree that the record supports her findings.
Bell has been a member of the State Bar since 2006. In September
2017, a client retained Bell to represent her in a dispossessory action
against a tenant. The client paid Bell $210 to draft and file a
complaint. On September 28, 2017, Bell informed her client that she
would file the complaint that day; she did not. The following day, the
client inquired as to whether Bell filed the complaint and served the
defendant, to which Bell replied that she had filed the complaint but
was waiting for the client to pay the service fee. Bell did not file the
complaint until October 3, 2017. Afterward, Bell twice told her client
that she had served the defendant; Bell never served the defendant
with the complaint. In November 2017, the client informed Bell of
updated costs to add to the claim. Bell told her client that she would
amend the claim that week; Bell never amended the claim. In
December 2017, Bell told her client that she filed a motion for
2
default and expected the court to schedule a hearing on that motion
near the beginning of 2018; Bell never filed a motion for default in
the case. The court placed the case on a calendar call for June 26,
2018, and although Bell was aware of the hearing, she did not
appear, causing the court to dismiss the case for want of prosecution.
Bell received a copy of the dismissal order but did not notify her
client about it until August or September of 2018. Other than the
complaint, Bell did not file anything in the client’s case. Bell told her
client that she filed a necessary certificate verifying that the
defendant was not on active duty in the military; Bell never did so.
Bell told her client that she would refile her lawsuit after it was
dismissed; Bell never did so. Throughout the representation, Bell
failed to adequately respond, or to respond at all, to her client’s
attempts to contact her for information and updates on the case.
Based on these facts, the Special Master found that Bell had
violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (a), and 3.2. The maximum
punishment for a violation of Rule 1.2 or 1.3 is disbarment, whereas
3
the maximum punishment for a violation of Rule 1.4 or 3.2 is a public
reprimand.
The Special Master considered the ABA Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652,
653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996), and found that Bell’s violations of the
duties owed to her client were intentional and knowing, rather than
inadvertent or negligent; that they harmed her client; and that
disbarment was the appropriate sanction. See ABA Standard 4.0
and 4.41 (disbarment appropriate when lawyer engages in pattern
of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious or
potential serious injury to a client). The Special Master found no
factors in mitigation of discipline, but found in aggravation that Bell
had a history of prior discipline (a 2015 investigative panel
reprimand and a 2016 review panel reprimand)1; a dishonest or
1 In 2015, Bell received a confidential investigative panel reprimand for
violations of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1, 3.3, and 8.4 (a) (4). The investigative panel found that Bell had failed to dismiss a complaint as
promised, failed to inform a judge of a competing action in another county, and
obtained a final divorce decree without proper notice to the opposing party or
his lawyer. In 2016, this Court accepted Bell’s petition for voluntary discipline
4
selfish motive; a pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; and
substantial experience in the practice of law. See ABA Standard 9.22
(a), (b), (c), (d), and (i). Accordingly, the Special Master concluded
that disbarment was the appropriate sanction and that it was
consistent with prior cases disbarring lawyers who failed to perform
work, failed to communicate with clients, and abandoned or
otherwise neglected client matters. See In the Matter of Dicks, 295
Ga. 181, 181-182, 184 (758 SE2d 311) (2014) (disbarring an attorney
who failed to timely file suit prior to the expiration of a statute of
limitation, twice failed to timely notify his client that actions had
been dismissed, and improperly advised the client when presenting
a document releasing the attorney from liability, where the attorney
and ordered that Bell receive a review panel reprimand for violations of
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4 (a) (4), after she
admitted that
in the representation of a client in a child custody matter, she . . .
fail[ed] to truthfully communicate with her client regarding
discovery and appointment of a guardian ad litem, fail[ed] to
timely respond to discovery, fail[ed] to seek the appointment of a
guardian ad litem, and fail[ed] to thoroughly prepare for certain
hearings.
In the Matter of Bell, 299 Ga. 143, 143-144 (787 SE2d 166) (2016).
5
presented no evidence in mitigation and aggravating factors
included, among other things, multiple offenses, substantial
experience in the practice of law, and two prior disciplinary actions
involving a similar pattern of abandoning clients); In the Matter of
Davis, 290 Ga. 857, 857-858, 861 (725 SE2d 216) (2012) (disbarring
an attorney who failed to communicate with her client, failed to
appear at a hearing, failed to effectively withdraw from the
representation, and made false statements in response to a notice of
investigation, where mitigating circumstances were absent and
aggravating factors included, among other things, a prior
disciplinary history, multiple offenses, and substantial experience
in the practice of law); In the Matter of Wadsworth, 312 Ga. 159, 159-161 (861 SE2d 104) (2021) (disbarring an attorney for failing to file
responses to dispositive motions or respond to discovery requests on
the clients’ behalf, for failing to continue working on the case, and
for failing to communicate with his clients, where there were no
mitigating factors and several aggravating factors, including a
history of prior discipline, a dishonest or selfish motive, commission
6
of multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of
law); In the Matter of Powell, 310 Ga. 859, 860-861 & n.1 (854 SE2d
731) (2021) (disbarring an attorney who accepted payment from a
client and entered an appearance on the client’s behalf but then
failed to respond to requests for an update on the case, perform any
work on the case, or appear in court for hearings, where there were
no mitigating factors and numerous aggravating factors, including
a prior disciplinary sanction, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern
of misconduct, vulnerability of the victim, and substantial
experience in the practice of law).
Bell filed a short, one-page list of exceptions to the Special
Master’s report and recommendation.2 Bell argues that this Court
should suspend, rather than disbar, her for several reasons, none of
which we find persuasive. First, Bell asserts that the Special Master
failed to consider that “[m]ost of the issue[s] in the case occurred
2 Bell initially missed her deadline to file exceptions, but we granted her
request for an extension of time to do so. Although our order granting the
extension provided that “[a] copy of this order MUST be attached as an exhibit
to the document for which the respondent received this extension,” Bell did not
comply with that directive.
7
during a period of time where [she] was not mentally capable of
practicing law,” due to severe depression related to the death of her
father for which she sought help from the “State Bar Lawyer
Services” and a mental health professional. As the Bar correctly
responds, however, the Special Master considered these claims and
found that, although Bell had testified at her deposition about “the
sudden, unexpected loss of her father in April 2018,” she had “offered
no evidence” that she “experienced depression [or] extreme mental
distress” as a result, that she “obtained counseling through the State
Bar,” or that any mental conditions “impacted her ability to practice
law.” Moreover, Bell’s history of dishonest conduct, for which she has
been disciplined on two separate occasions, suggests that mentalhealth issues triggered by the death of her father do not fully explain
the underlying misconduct at issue here. Second, although Bell
argues that the client only compensated her for drafting the
complaint, this does not explain why, as the Special Master found,
Bell “continued to make [false] representations to [the client] of work
she was purportedly doing in the case.” Finally, Bell argues that she
8
has “made substantial changes in [her] practice since the allegations
in this matter[,] . . . join[ing] a partnership and creat[ing] systems
to help [her] . . . with [her] workflow [and with] managing the stress
of the practice of law.” However, these alleged changes do not excuse
the pattern of intentional and knowing misconduct at issue here.
Nor are we persuaded that such changes would reduce the risk of
additional rules violations in the future, given Bell’s history of
discipline for similar dishonest conduct.
Having considered the record, including Bell’s exceptions
before this Court and the Bar’s responses to them, we agree that
disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter. Accordingly,
it is hereby ordered that the name of Tiffini Colette Bell be removed
from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of
Georgia. Bell is reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219
(b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
9