In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: August 9, 2022 S22Y0665, S22Y0666, S22Y0667, S22Y0668, IN THE MATTER OF GRADY ALEXANDER ROBERTS III (four cases). PER CURIAM. These four matters are before this Court on four separate reports and recommendations of the State Disciplinary Review Board, each of which reviewed separate reports and recommendations made by Special Master Catherine H. Hicks.1 The Review Board reports recommend that respondent Grady Alexander Roberts III (State Bar No. 609540), who has been a member of the 1 The Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia governing disciplinary proceedings were amended on January 12, 2018, based on an Order of the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Order provides in part that “the former rules shall continue to apply to disciplinary proceedings commenced before July 1, 2018[.]” Because these cases were commenced prior to July 1, 2018, they are proceeding under the former Rules. In the Matter of Podvin, 304 Ga. 378, 378 n.1 (818 SE2d 651) (2018). Bar since 1994, be disbarred for a number of violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct in four separate client matters. For the reasons discussed below, we accept the recommendation of the Review Board and disbar Roberts. At the outset, a note about the scope of this opinion. The Bar alleged a number of violations against Roberts in these four disciplinary matters: State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) Nos. 6875, 6876, 6963, and 7027.2 But the special master and the Review Board reached different conclusions about whether certain Rules had been violated. And for certain other alleged violations, even where the special master and the Review Board agreed, the issues appear to us to be debatable. That said, from our review of the record, it cannot be reasonably disputed that Roberts committed numerous violations of multiple Rules, including several for which disbarment is an available sanction, and that disbarment is the 2 In addition to these four matters, the special master was considering seven other matters against Roberts, two of which appear to have since been dismissed. A special master has also been appointed in five additional disciplinary matters against Roberts. We do not consider those additional matters here. 2 appropriate sanction in the light of these violations. So we address here only those violations the record clearly supports. See In the Matter of Morris, 302 Ga. 862, 864, n.3 (809 SE2d 799) (2018) (declining to reach question of whether attorney violated Rule 8.4 (a) (3) because attorney clearly violated a number of other Rules for which disbarment was an appropriate sanction). Specifically, we address only the violations established in SDBD Nos. 6963 and 7027, and we do not address the allegations in SDBD Nos. 6875 and 6876. Procedural Issues As a threshold matter, Roberts has raised a number of procedural objections to these disciplinary proceedings. None have merit. First, Roberts contends that he did not receive fair notice of the charges against him. The formal complaints listed numerous factual assertions followed by a recitation of …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals