In the Matter of Kara Sherrisse Lawrence

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: February 21, 2023
S23Y0269. IN THE MATTER OF KARA SHERRISSE
LAWRENCE.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation of special master Catherine Koura, who
recommends that Respondent Kara Sherrisse Lawrence (State Bar
No. 534355) be disbarred for her multiple violations of the Georgia
Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) in connection with her
representation of a single client. See Bar Rule 4-218. Having
reviewed the record, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate
sanction in this case.
The record before this Court reflects that, in June 2020, the
State Bar filed and served the underlying formal complaint by
publication. Lawrence, who was admitted to the Bar in 2016, failed
to answer the formal complaint, and the special master granted the
State Bar’s motion for default. See Bar Rule 4-212 (a). The special
master then found that Lawrence, through her default, was deemed
to admit the following allegations of the formal complaint.
In February 2019, a client hired Lawrence to initiate and
handle his immigration matter. The client signed an attorney-client
retainer agreement, which provided for a $3,500 retainer as a “flat
fee in lieu of [Lawrence]’s hourly rate” and authorized Lawrence to
debit that amount from the client’s bank account. The agreement
specified that the attorney-client relationship between Lawrence
and the client would continue until “completion of the matter or
upon earlier termination of the relationship as provided” in the
agreement. Neither Lawrence nor the client ever took steps to cancel
or terminate the agreement.
On February 22, 2019, Lawrence debited $1,000 from the
client’s account as a deposit on the retainer. Several days later, she
debited another $1,030. Then, on March 5, 2019, she debited
another $3,321.75 from the client’s account. Lawrence provided the
2
client no advance notice of the March 5 debit and no notice that she
was debiting more in total than the $3,500 he had authorized.
The United States Customs and Immigration Service
(“USCIS”) has an online portal for processing immigration claims.
When an attorney is involved in an immigration claim, the client is
required to accept the lawyer’s representation within the online
portal. Lawrence’s client and his daughter repeatedly attempted to
contact Lawrence to learn how to accept her representation in the
portal and to learn of the status of the client’s matter. On several
occasions, a person in Lawrence’s office sent the client a “code” to
use to accept the representation, but none of the codes were valid.
Thus, Lawrence never entered an appearance in the client’s
immigration matter and did not (and could not) file any immigration
paperwork on his behalf. Nevertheless, on May 21, 2019, a person
from Lawrence’s office sent the client an email stating that his
“application [wa]s moving forward” and directing him to “create an
account if [he] d[id] not already have one” with immigration services.
Twice, the client appeared at Lawrence’s office to speak with her
3
about how to have his matter proceed with USCIS. The first time,
no one in her office was able to provide the client with any specific
information, although he was assured that she was working on his
case. The second time, during late May 2019, the client discovered
that Lawrence had abandoned her law office and left no contact
information. The client continued to try to contact Lawrence, but
was unsuccessful.
Eventually, the client filed a grievance with the State Bar. In
Lawrence’s response to that grievance, she misidentified her client
as “Mr. Bennett,” explaining that “Mr. Bennett’s package” of
immigration filings could not be processed by USCIS because “Mr.
Bennett” refused “to formally accept [Lawrence’s] representation.”
She further represented that “[d]riving to [her office in] Cobb County
was [] not of interest to Mr. Bennett.” Lawrence attached to her
response a copy of the email from her office to the actual client—i.e.,
not Mr. Bennett—in this matter, but she offered no other evidence
of any codes being sent to the client, any other communication with
him, or any other follow-through by her or her staff.
4
Following Lawrence’s response to the grievance, the Bar
requested that she provide it with certain documents and
information related to this matter and to her IOTLA accounts,
including her bank statements; her Rule 1.15 (I) (a)/1.15 (II) (b) trust
account record/ledgers; any documentary evidence authorizing her
to charge the client for the amounts she charged him; copies of any
filings she had submitted to any government agency on the client’s
behalf; and any proof of contact with the client prior to him filing the
grievance. Lawrence did not respond to the Bar’s request.
On June 7, 2021, Lawrence acknowledged service of the Notice
of Investigation in this matter and provided an “Oath to Response,”
but she provided no additional response. Instead, she directed the
State Disciplinary Board to consider her response to the grievance
as her written response under oath to the Notice of Investigation—
despite its references to “Mr. Bennett,” who was not the client in this
disciplinary matter. Lawrence never provided any trust accounting
information to the Bar and did not refund any of the $5,351.75 she
had debited from the client’s account.
5
By this conduct, the special master determined that Lawrence
violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (III) (e), 1.16 (d), 8.1,
8.4 (a) (4),1 and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct
found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a violation
of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (III) (e), 8.1, and 8.4 (a) (4) is
disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of the
remaining rules is a public reprimand.
The special master appropriately 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
Lawrence’s actions were intentional and that they caused her client
both actual and potential harm. In aggravation of discipline, the
special master cited Lawrence’s dishonest or selfish motive as
evidenced by her efforts to conceal her misconduct from her client
and her intentional failure to comply with the disciplinary process;
her pattern of misconduct which continued for more than a year with
1 The violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) arises, at least in part, from Lawrence’s
knowing misrepresentation to her client that his matter was proceeding when
in fact it was not.
6
regard to this client; her commission of multiple offenses; her bad
faith obstruction of the disciplinary process as evidenced by her
failure to properly respond to the grievance, the notice of
investigation, the formal complaint, and the Bar’s requests for
information; her refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her
conduct; the vulnerability of her victims; and her indifference to
making restitution. See ABA Standard 9.22 (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h),
and (j). In mitigation, the special master noted Lawrence’s lack of a
prior disciplinary history and her inexperience in the practice of law.
ABA Standard 9.32 (a) and (f). Ultimately, the special master
concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with the special master.
Lawrence’s abandonment of her client and her failure to respond to
the disciplinary authorities warrants the sanction of disbarment,
and this sanction is consistent with prior cases in which we have
disbarred attorneys who abandoned clients and failed to respond to
disciplinary authorities. See, e.g., In the Matter of Bell, 313 Ga. 615(872 S.E.2d 290) (2022); In the Matter of Powell, 310 Ga. 859 (854
7
SE2d 731) (2021); In the Matter of Bennett, 307 Ga. 679 (837 S.E.2d
298) (2019); In the Matter of Annis, 306 Ga. 187 (829 SE2d 346)
(2019); In the Matter of Miller, 302 Ga. 366 (806 SE2d 596) (2017).
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Kara
Sherrisse Lawrence be removed from the rolls of persons authorized
to practice law in the State of Georgia. Lawrence is reminded of her
duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
8