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: December 10, 2024


  S24Y1164, S24Y1165, S24Y1166, S24Y1167. IN THE MATTER
             OF MICHAEL FREDERICK GREENE.


        PER CURIAM.

        These four disciplinary matters are before the Court on a

Notice of Discipline that seeks the disbarment of respondent

Michael Frederick Greene (State Bar No. 307901), who has been a

member of the State Bar since 1993, based on his misconduct in the

representation and abandonment of three clients. Greene is

currently suspended pursuant to an interim order based on his

failure to adequately respond to the State Bar’s Notice of

Investigation, pursuant to State Bar Rule 4-204.3 (d). See Case No.

S24Y0958 (Apr. 23, 2024). We agree with the State Bar that

Greene’s abandonment of clients and failure to participate in the

instant proceedings warrant disbarment.
     The Notice of Discipline issued by the State Bar in these

proceedings was properly served on Greene by publication after he

failed to acknowledge service within 20 days of a mailing to his

official address registered with the State Bar of Georgia’s

Membership Department pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii).

As Greene failed to file a Notice of Rejection to the Notice of

Discipline within the time set by Bar Rule 4-208.3 (a), he is in

default, has no right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to

discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by this

Court pursuant to Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).

     The facts, as deemed admitted, are as follows. In the matters

underlying State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) numbers

7598 and 7627, Greene received $10,000 from a father to represent

his daughter for the limited purpose of a bond hearing in Jones

County Superior Court. Accordingly, in June 2020, Greene filed a

limited entry of appearance for purposes of seeking bond on behalf

of the client. In November 2020, along with other motions, Greene

filed a notice of appearance when the client was indicted. While the

                                 2
client was incarcerated, Greene was often unavailable when she

would call him for case updates. During one telephone conference

with the prosecutor and investigator assigned to the client’s case,

Greene used profane language and was so disruptive while yelling

at his family members that the prosecutor rescheduled the

conference. Greene failed to attend the rescheduled case conference.

     On April 8, 2021, the client, who remained incarcerated, came

before the Superior Court for a trial calendar call, and despite

receiving notice, Greene failed to attend the hearing and did not

notify the court of any conflicts, nor did he file a conflict letter. The

Superior Court was notified that the client and her father had not

heard from Greene in several months despite many attempts to

communicate with him. When court personnel attempted to contact

Greene, he did not respond. The hearing was rescheduled, but

Greene still failed to appear, and court personnel, the prosecutor,

and the client’s father were all unsuccessful in contacting Greene.

The trial court then sent a notice for Greene to appear for a show

cause hearing, but he failed to attend the show cause hearing that

                                   3
was before another Superior Court judge. During the show cause

hearing, the judge learned that not only had Greene abandoned the

case, but, in the words of a prosecutor who appeared at the hearing,

he exhibited “rather bizarre behavior” during a meeting with the

prosecutor, investigators, and the client. The court appointed an

assistant public defender to represent the client because she could

not afford another attorney, and the client terminated Greene’s

representation.

     Early on in the investigation, the client told Greene she wanted

to cooperate with the prosecuting attorney by offering evidence that

may assist in the investigation, but due to Greene’s abandonment,

her willingness to be a cooperating witness was never conveyed to

the prosecutor, and, instead, the co-defendant provided information

against the client, which resulted in the co-defendant negotiating a

plea agreement.

     With regard to SDBD No. 7793, in May 2020, Greene was

retained to represent a client in a criminal case in Gwinnett County

Superior Court, and he charged the client $15,000. While

                                 4
incarcerated, the client attended the first court appearance with

Greene in May 2020, and in July 2020, she was released from jail on

bond. Greene last visited the client two days prior to her release

from jail, and in September 2020, the client reached out to Greene

for a status update on her case. After the September 2020

conversation, the client never heard from Greene again. Greene

failed to notify the client of her arraignment hearing in May 2021,

and he failed to attend the hearing. He also never obtained or

explained discovery to the client, and he never shared any plea offers

with the client. The client attempted to reach Greene on numerous

occasions, but he never responded, and she had to retain new

counsel to resolve her case.

     Finally, with regard to SDBD No. 7880, in July 2023, a client

retained Greene to investigate the incarceration of her father who

was an inmate at a federal prison in Georgia. The scope of the

representation included an investigation into why the federal prison

was holding the father in isolation; whether the father was charged

with new crimes; and whether it was legal for the federal prison to

                                  5
return or withhold an inmate’s mail. Greene agreed to conduct the

investigation for a flat fee of $500 and to provide answers within a

few days. The client immediately paid the fee and sent a text

message to remind Greene to send her a receipt and “something

formal . . . with things clear in writing.” Greene did not send her the

requested receipt and failed to send a retainer or legal services

agreement. The day after receiving payment, Greene responded to

the client’s inquiry regarding prison mail, and after learning from

Greene that the prison’s actions regarding her father’s mail were

illegal, the client filed a complaint with the regional department of

the federal prison. At a later date, Greene notified the client that he

was not actually successful in contacting the federal prison, and she

determined that Greene had not completed any of the tasks for

which he was retained. The client then requested a full refund;

Greene advised that he did not give refunds and that he was closing

the case (although he later offered to refund her $200, which she

declined).

     Based on these facts, the State Disciplinary Board found

                                  6
probable cause to believe that Greene violated Rules 1.2 (a),1 1.3,2

1.4 (a) (3) and (4),3 1.5 (a),4 1.16 (d),5 and 3.26 of the Georgia Rules of

Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d).7 The maximum


      1 Rule 1.2 (a) provides that “a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions

concerning the scope and objectives of representation and . . . shall consult with
the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.”
       2 Rule 1.3 provides that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence

and promptness in representing a client. Reasonable diligence as used in this
rule means that a lawyer shall not without just cause to the detriment of the
client in effect willfully abandon or willfully disregard a legal matter entrusted
to the lawyer.”
       3 Rule 1.4 (a) provides that “a lawyer shall . . . (3) keep the client

reasonably informed about the status of the matter; [and] (4) promptly comply
with reasonable requests for information[.]”
       4 Rule 1.5 (a) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not make an agreement for,

charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for
expenses[.]”
       5 Rule 1.16 (d) provides “[u]pon termination of representation, a lawyer

shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s
interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the
client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been
earned.”
       6 Rule 3.2 provides that “[a] lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to

expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.”
       7 The Board also found with regard to SDBD No. 7598 and 7627 that

Greene had “violated” Bar Rule 4-104 (mental illness, cognitive impairment,
alcohol abuse, or substance abuse, to the extent of impairing competency as a
lawyer, shall constitute grounds for removing a lawyer from the practice of
law). However, Greene’s alleged bizarre and disruptive behavior alone do not
constitute grounds for removing a lawyer from the practice of law under this
Bar Rule. Compare In the Matter of Healy, 

 (

) (2020) (accepting attorney’s petition to surrender his license where he
sought and obtained an alcohol and drug evaluation and submitted the written
results thereof to the State Bar and a health care provider, then confirmed the

                                        7
penalty for a violation of each Rule is disbarment, except Rules 1.4

(a) (3) and (4), 1.5 (a), 1.16 (d), and 3.2 where the maximum penalty

is a public reprimand.

      In determining the appropriate level of discipline, the Board

appropriately considered the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer

Sanctions, including the existence of aggravating or mitigating

factors. See In the Matter of Morse, 

 (2) (

) (1995), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in In the

Matter of Cook, 

 (1) (

) (2021). We

agree with the Board’s determination that the following factors

should be considered in aggravation: Greene’s prior disciplinary

history, see In the Matter of Greene, 

 (

)

(2013) (accepting petition for voluntary discipline and imposing 18-

month suspension based on his admitted violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4,



findings of the earlier assessment and opined that the condition would impair
his ability to practice law, and, thus, he “admitted the existence of sufficient
grounds for his permanent removal from the practice of law under Bar Rule 4-
104”). See also In the Matter of Briley-Holmes, 

, 208 n.9 (

) (2019) (noting that “[r]emoval from practice for mental incapacity [under
Rule 4-104] . . . is not the same thing as a disciplinary sanction imposed for
misconduct”).
                                       8
1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.16 (d), and 8.4 related to two client matters); his

pattern of misconduct; his commission of multiple offenses; his

substantial experience in the practice of law; and his obstruction of

the disciplinary proceedings in bad faith based on his failure to

respond to the Notice of Investigation and his failure to appear for a

mental health evaluation as directed by the Bar. See ABA Standards

9.22 (a), (c)-(e), (i). The Board has not identified any factors in

mitigation that are supported by the record, and we see none.8

      The Board also noted that ABA Standard 4.4, which applies to

violations of Rule 1.3, provides that disbarment is generally

appropriate when a lawyer “knowingly fails to perform services for

a client and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client”

or “engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and



      8 The Board considered in mitigation that Greene provided documented

proof of a prior mental health diagnosis and “admits” that his conduct in these
matters related to his underlying mental health issues, see ABA Standard 9.32
(c) (personal or emotional problems), and that it also received correspondence
from Greene that included his admission to misconduct and remorse for the
same. See ABA Standard 9.32 (l) (remorse). However, no such documents are
in the record before us, and so we decline to consider either as a mitigating
factor. See In the Matter of Cleveland, 

, 518 n.14 (

)
(2023).
                                      9
causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.” ABA

Standard 4.41 (b), (c). Here, the Board concluded that Greene

knowingly violated Rule 1.3 in his representation of the three

clients, that he engaged in a pattern of neglecting client cases, and

that his misconduct caused his clients (and their family members)

economic loss, and even caused one client to experience an extended

period of incarceration.9 Thus, the Board concluded, disbarment is

the presumptive sanction for these Rule 1.3 violations. See In the

Matter of Briley-Holmes, 

 (

) (2018) (on

special master’s report and recommendation, concluding that

disbarment was appropriate for attorney who abandoned seven

clients and violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16). Additionally, the Board

noted that this Court frequently disbars lawyers who repeatedly

abandon their clients. See In the Matter of Ellison, 

 (651




      9 The reference to the extended period of incarceration appears to be a

reference to the Jones County client’s stated desire to cooperate that Greene
did not convey to the prosecutor. We note that it is not entirely clear from the
record to what extent the client’s period of incarceration would have been
shorter had Greene been more diligent. But we nonetheless conclude that ABA
Standard 4.4 applies and disbarment is appropriate here.
                                      

) (2007) (disbarring attorney on Review Panel’s report and

recommendation where attorney abandoned multiple clients); In the

Matter of Peebles, 

 (

) (2006) (disbarring

attorney on notices of discipline in six matters for conduct that

included abandonment of multiple clients’ legal matters).

     The Board also concluded that Greene’s violations of Rules 1.2

(a), 1.5 (a), and 3.2 demonstrated a violation of his duties owed to

the legal profession and the legal system, a lack of diligence owed to

his clients, and his failure to maintain personal integrity. See ABA

Standards 4.4, 5.1, and 6.2. In sum, the Board found that Greene’s

consistent failure to attend court appearances, to notify clients of

scheduled court appearances, and his overall disregard of court

orders supported disbarment. See generally In the Matter of Lain,

 (

) (2021) (on special master’s report and

recommendation, concluding that disbarment was appropriate for

multiple matters that included attorney’s failure to consult with

client, causing client to attend hearing without counsel; charging

client unreasonable fee without performing work; and causing

                                 11
unnecessary delay by failing to communicate). Greene has not

submitted any filings in this Court as to these matters.

     Having reviewed the filings in these cases, we conclude that

disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Greene’s misconduct in

these matters, which we hold violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (a) (3)

and (4), 1.5 (a), 1.16 (d), and 3.2. Disbarment is also consistent with

the sanction imposed in similar cases. See, e.g., In the Matter of

Larson, 

 (

) (2019) (disbarring attorney who

abandoned multiple clients, failed to respond to notices of discipline,

and had prior disciplinary history); In the Matter of Moore, 

 (

) (2018) (disbarring attorney who abandoned

multiple clients and failed to respond to notice of discipline).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Michael Frederick

Greene be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice

law in the State of Georgia. Greene is reminded of his duties

pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

     Disbarred. All the Justices concur.



                                  12