In the Matter of George Michael Plumides ( 2021 )

In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: March 1, 2021
S21Y0357. IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE MICHAEL
PLUMIDES.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of
Discipline recommending the disbarment of George Michael
Plumides (State Bar No. 582274). The Notice of Discipline alleges
serious misconduct related to five different disciplinary matters.
Plumides was personally served but failed to timely file a Notice of
Rejection. Therefore, 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).
Plumides was admitted to the Bar in 1990 and has twice
received confidential disciplinary sanctions.1 The record reflects
that Plumides engaged in a pattern of abandoning clients in civil
and criminal matters and supports the conclusion that he committed
numerous violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct
found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d), for which disbarment is the most severe
sanction.2 Specifically, the facts, as deemed admitted by Plumides’s
default, show that the following misconduct occurred over the past
several years. Plumides settled personal injury suits for two clients
but failed to appropriately account for the settlement proceeds and
failed to disburse the proceeds to one client; failed to maintain client
funds in an IOLTA bank account; failed to appear at calendar calls
for two clients in criminal matters and then failed to appear on a
1 Plumides received a Formal Letter of Admonition in 2002, see Bar Rule
4-102 (b) (6), and a Confidential Reprimand in August 2019, see Bar Rule 4-
102 (b) (5). See also Bar Rule 4-208 (“In the event of a subsequent disciplinary
proceeding, the confidentiality of the imposition of confidential discipline shall
be waived and the Office of the General Counsel may use such information as
aggravation of discipline.”).
2 Given the breadth of Plumides’s misconduct, we deem it unnecessary
to detail all of the many violations the Bar has alleged.
2
contempt notice in one of those matters, resulting in his arrest and
jailing for five weeks; failed to appear at a calendar call in a traffic
court matter, which led to the suspension of the client’s license and
registration; attempted to pay filing fees for a client in a civil matter
with a check drawn on an account with insufficient funds; failed to
respond to his clients’ requests for information about their cases;
failed to timely respond to grievances filed with respect to all five
disciplinary matters; and failed to respond to the Notices of
Investigation filed in four of the matters. The one response to a
Notice of Investigation that Plumides did file was untimely and non-
responsive to the allegations against him. We agree with the State
Disciplinary Board that by this conduct Plumides violated Rules 1.1,
1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.15 (I)-(III), 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.3. The maximum sanction
for a violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.15 (I) - (III), or 8.4 (a) (4) is
disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 9.3 is
a public reprimand.
In aggravation of discipline, the Board properly looked to the
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see In the Matter of
3
Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996), and found that
numerous aggravating factors applied, but that no mitigating
factors were applicable. We agree that the following aggravating
factors apply here: prior disciplinary offenses, conduct displays
dishonest and selfish motives, a pattern of misconduct, multiple
offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongfulness of conduct,
vulnerability of victim, substantial experience in the practice of law,
and indifference to making restitution. See ABA Standard 9.22 (a),
(b), (c), (d), (g), (h), (i), and (j).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is
the appropriate sanction in this matter and is consistent with prior
cases disbarring lawyers who have engaged in a pattern of
abandoning clients and misusing client funds, and who have failed
to respond in disciplinary proceedings. See, e.g., In the Matter of
Rambeau, 302 Ga. 367 (806 SE2d 572) (2017); In the Matter of
Gibson, 297 Ga. 44 (771 SE2d 899) (2015). Accordingly, it is hereby
ordered that the name of George Michael Plumides be removed from
the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of
4
Georgia. Plumides is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule
4-219 (b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
5