In the Matter of William D. Thompson, Jr

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 25, 2022
S22Y1198. IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM D. THOMPSON, JR.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on an amended
petition for voluntary reciprocal discipline filed by William D.
Thompson, Jr. (State Bar No. 710152), pursuant to Rule 9.4 of the
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), found in Bar Rule
4-102 (d), and Bar Rule 4-227 (b), after this Court rejected
Thompson’s first petition due to several deficiencies that precluded
final resolution of the matter. See In the Matter of Thompson, 310Ga. 753 (854 SE2d 522) (2021) (Thompson I).1 In his amended
This Court rejected Thompson’s first petition for voluntary reciprocal
1
discipline based on four deficiencies, including its failure to: (1) “identify which
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct his conduct violated,” see Bar Rule 4-
227 (a); (2) “establish that the requested one-year suspension is appropriate
discipline under Georgia law,” which the Court noted was “particularly salient
given that . . . in Florida, [Thompson] also received a further two-year
‘probation’ period, during which he is restricted in using a trust account and
faces additional reporting obligations and fee payments to the Florida Bar”; (3)
petition, Thompson, who has been a member of the State Bar since
2003 and whose license is currently inactive for failure to pay his
license fee, again asks this Court to impose a one-year suspension,
but now seeks to have it be imposed retroactively, as substantially
similar discipline to the one-year suspension, plus probation, that
he received in Florida for mismanaging his trust account. The State
Bar has responded and urges this Court to accept Thompson’s
petition. Because Thompson has sufficiently addressed the
deficiencies set forth in Thompson I, and because we agree that a
one-year suspension, imposed nunc pro tunc, is appropriate, we
accept Thompson’s amended petition for voluntary discipline.
In the amended petition, Thompson admits that he was
suspended from the practice of law in Florida for one year, effective
January 8, 2020, to be followed by two years on “probation,” for
misconduct involving the mismanagement of his trust account. He
include referenced documents associated with the Florida disciplinary
proceeding; and (4) note that Thompson is currently suspended due to his
failure to pay his license fee. Thompson I, 310 Ga. at 753-754. In his current
amended petition, Thompson states that he has worked in good faith with the
State Bar to address this Court’s concerns and responds to each of those points.
2
was also required to attend a Trust Accounting Workshop, to pay
costs incurred by the Florida Bar related to this disciplinary matter,
and to pay restitution to a client. On August 19, 2021, the Florida
Supreme Court reinstated his law license based on his compliance
with these terms, although he still remains subject to the period of
probation. As part of his probation, Thompson is required to pay a
quarterly monitoring fee to the Florida Bar and certify that he no
longer maintains a trust account and that he is not required to do so
based on the nature of his practice. He has included with his
amended petition evidence that he is currently in compliance with
these terms of his probation. While Thompson was under the one-
year suspension, he received a public reprimand for violating
Florida Bar Rule 3-5.1 (h) (notice to clients of emergency
suspension), for what he claims was his failure to take down social
media sites operated by his firm after he was placed on emergency
suspension preceding the one-year suspension.
Regarding the conduct leading to his one-year suspension,
Thompson admits the following facts, as ratified and adopted by the
3
Florida referee in his report and approved by the Florida Supreme
Court. In January 2019, the Florida Bar received an overdraft notice
for Thompson’s trust account. This led the Florida Bar to complete
an audit of Thompson’s trust account records from March 1, 2018, to
July 3, 2019. The audit revealed that during the period of March 1,
2018, to April 30, 2018, Thompson did not maintain appropriate
trust accounting records; that as a result, he made six transfers from
his trust account to his operating account under the mistaken belief
that he was entitled to the funds being transferred improperly; and
that this also led to conversion of his clients’ funds. Specifically,
Thompson admits that between March 23, 2018, and April 27, 2018,
he converted for his own business or personal purposes at least
$27,000 when he made the six transfers described in his stipulation
to the Florida Bar from his trust account to his operating account,
and that each time he made a transfer to his operating account he
did not have enough funds in his trust account to pay the clients who
were owed monies. Thompson also admits that although he
maintained trust account records, they were not compliant with the
4
Florida rules.
Thompson claims that he did not selfishly intend to take client
money. He also states that when he discovered that the account was
overdrawn in January 2019, the check at issue was immediately
covered, and he and his bookkeeper conducted an internal audit,
which revealed that his paralegal had acted criminally by stealing
from office accounts and mishandling client funds. He admits that
he is responsible for his paralegal’s misconduct and his own
negligence in supervising the accounts.
Based on his misconduct, Thompson was found to have violated
the following Florida Bar rules: Rule 4-1.15 (safekeeping property
— compliance with trust account rules); Rule 4-8.4 (a) (misconduct
— a lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of
Professional Conduct, including through the acts of another); Rule
5-1.1 (governing trust accounts); and Rule 5-1.2 (governing trust
accounting records and procedures). Moreover, at the time of the
Florida disciplinary proceedings, Thompson’s trust account
contained $12,323.52 owed to clients, with a trust account shortfall
5
of $5,834.44 representing a cost advance paid by a client. As part of
his discipline, Thompson agreed to the distribution of the remaining
trust account funds with the shortage of $5,834.44 to be paid by
Thompson as restitution to the client.
Thompson further admits that the Florida referee identified as
aggravating factors that there was a pattern of misconduct, multiple
offenses, and that he had a substantial experience in the practice of
law (he was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1988 and, according the
Florida referee, began practicing in 1991). See ABA Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”) 9.22 (c), (d), and (i).
As for mitigating factors, the Florida referee considered the absence
of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish
motive, his cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and his
good character and reputation. See ABA Standards 9.32 (a), (b), (e),
and (g). Thompson states that his admitted conduct in Florida would
constitute a violation of GRPC 8.4, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), and 1.15 (III).2
2 Thompson does not identify the particular subsections of each of these
rules that apply, but it appears that they would include GRPC 8.4 (a) (1)
6
Thompson states that this Court has the authority to impose
discipline substantially similar to his one-year Florida suspension,
with reinstatement being conditioned on proof of reinstatement in
Florida. See In the Matter of Podvin, 304 Ga. 378 (818 SE2d 651)
(2018) (imposing 18-month suspension with proof of reinstatement
in Florida as reciprocal discipline based on 18-month suspension
with conditions imposed in Florida); In the Matter of Barrett, 272 Ga.
372 (529 SE2d 365) (2000) (suspending attorney from practicing law
in Georgia based on three-year suspension in Florida, until such
time that she could provide certification from Florida Bar that she
had been readmitted to practice in Florida and until she had met
(lawyer shall not violate or knowingly attempt to violate the GRPC, including
through the acts of another); 1.15 (I) (a), (c) (lawyer shall keep complete records
of trust account funds and 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 1.15 (II) (a) – (b) (lawyer shall deposit and administer all funds
held for a client from a trust account and no 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). GRPC 1.15 (III)
generally sets out the mandatory reporting and production requirements for
every lawyer maintaining a trust account in Georgia. The maximum penalty
for a violation of GRPC 8.4 (a) (1) is the maximum penalty for the specific
GRPC violated, and the maximum penalty for all of the remaining subsections
listed above is disbarment.
7
certain conditions for readmission in Georgia). Thompson adds that
Florida’s imposition of probation, which is unavailable in Georgia,
does not preclude this Court from recognizing the one-year
suspension as substantially similar, as this Court has previously
approved reciprocal suspensions “without adding time for the
probationary period.” In the Matter of Hanzelik, 294 Ga. 727, 728
(755 SE2d 758) (2014) (citing In the Matter of Arthur, 291 Ga. 658(732 SE2d 86) (2012)). In sum, he states that because his one-year
suspension has been fulfilled, this Court should impose a one-year
reciprocal suspension, retroactive to January 8, 2020, in the light of
the fact that he was not practicing law in Georgia at the time of the
offense. See In the Matter of Onipede, 288 Ga. 156 (702 SE2d 136)
(2010) (accepting voluntary surrender of license nunc pro tunc to
date lawyer voluntarily stopped practicing law and closed her
practice).
The State Bar has responded to the amended petition and
requests that this Court accept it and impose a one-year suspension
of his law license, retroactive to January 8, 2020. The State Bar
8
agrees with Thompson that imposing a period of suspension,
without probation and without adding time for the probation period,
satisfies the requirements of Rule 9.4. See Hanzelik, 294 Ga. at 728;
Arthur, 291 Ga. at 658; see also In the Matter of Meaney, 298 Ga.
136, 137 (779 SE2d 662) (2015) (noting that “imposition of identical
discipline is not possible here, as [lawyer’s] Tennessee suspension
includes the use of a practice monitor during the probated portion of
the suspension, a sanction not provided for by the Georgia Rules”).
In addition, the State Bar notes that this Court previously accepted
the imposition of a suspension of the same length as that imposed in
Florida, along with proof of readmission in Florida, as “substantially
similar” discipline. See Podvin, 304 Ga. at 379. Finally, the State
Bar states that although Thompson’s license status in Georgia
remains inactive and not in good standing, he has made substantial
efforts to mitigate the problem by communicating with the State
Bar’s membership department. The State Bar concludes that
Thompson’s amended petition includes substantial evidence that
indicates his compliance with the Supreme Court of Florida’s
9
Consent Judgment, his probation requirements, and an
understanding of the GRPC.
Having reviewed the petition and response, the Court agrees
that imposition of a one-year suspension is appropriate under these
circumstances and is consistent with our precedent. See Hanzelik,
294 Ga. at 728-730 (imposing six-month and 45-day suspensions as
reciprocal discipline without adding any time for probationary
period also imposed in Tennessee); In the Matter of Bounds, 294 Ga.
724 (755 SE2d 745) (2014) (imposing 30-day suspension as
reciprocal discipline without adding any time for one-year
probationary period also imposed in Florida); In the Matter of
Maddux, 281 Ga. 607 (642 SE2d 317) (2007) (imposing 30-day
suspension as reciprocal discipline without adding time for one-year
probationary period imposed in Tennessee); see also In the Matter of
Potts, 301 Ga. 789, 790 (804 SE2d 59) (2017) (discipline less than
disbarment or suspension “imposed in another jurisdiction is not
properly the subject of a reciprocal discipline proceeding under our
Rules”). We also agree that Thompson has made the necessary
10
showing to support the imposition of a suspension retroactive to the
date that he was suspended by the Florida Supreme Court. See, e.g.,
Onipede, 288 Ga. at 157. Accordingly, we accept Thompson’s
amended petition for voluntary reciprocal discipline and suspend
him from the practice of law for one year, nunc pro tunc to January
8, 2020. Thompson will nevertheless remain under an
administrative suspension due to his failure to pay his license fee
until his successful completion of all of the terms and conditions as
set forth in Bar Rule 1-501 (b).
Amended petition for voluntary reciprocal discipline accepted.
One-year suspension, nunc pro tunc to January 8, 2020. All the
Justices concur.
11