CourtListener 10846011

Full text

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: March 3, 2026

S26Y0287. IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH WILLIAM CLOUD.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

recommendation of Special Master William T. Davis, who

recommends that Joseph William Cloud (State Bar No. 544816), who

has been a member of the State Bar since 2008 but has remained

administratively suspended since 2021 for failing to pay State Bar

dues, be disbarred for certain misconduct while representing two

clients and for his ultimate abandonment of those clients. The State

Bar charged Cloud with violating Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.15(I)(b),

1.15(I)(c), 1.15(II)(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, 5.5(a), and 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia

Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), found in Bar Rule 4-102(d).

The maximum sanction for violating Rules 1.3, 1.15(I)(b), 1.15(I)(c),

1.15(II)(a), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a)(4) is disbarment; the maximum
sanction for the remaining violations is a public reprimand. The

Special Master granted the State Bar’s motion for default after

Cloud failed to file an answer to the formal complaints and ordered

the parties to submit briefs pertaining to the appropriate sanction.

After the State Bar filed a brief outlining several aggravating factors

and one mitigating factor for the Special Master’s consideration, and

Cloud failed to file anything, the Special Master issued his report

and recommendation. Neither party requested review by the Review

Board. The State Bar has now submitted the record to this Court.

Cloud has not filed any exceptions to the Special Master’s report,

and the time for him to do so has run.

Since Cloud is deemed to have admitted every factual

allegation and Rule violation in the formal complaints due to

default, we agree with the Special Master that disbarment is the

appropriate sanction.

1. Procedural History

This matter arises from two grievances filed against Cloud, as

set out in State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) Nos. 7779 and

2
7782. In connection with SDBD No. 7779, the client filed a grievance

against Cloud in April 2022, concerning Cloud’s abandonment of a

lawsuit filed on the client’s behalf related to a legal dispute involving

a competing business. In connection with SDBD No. 7782, the client

filed a grievance against Cloud in March 2022, concerning Cloud’s

failure to appropriately disburse $12,000 entrusted to Cloud by the

client for the purpose of reclaiming the client’s real property and

Cloud’s failure to respond to the client regarding the same. Cloud

did not respond to either grievance and completely failed to

participate in the disciplinary process, including failing to respond

to the Formal Complaints issued by the State Bar for both matters

that were properly served by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-

203.1(b)(3)(ii). The Special Master deemed the factual allegations

and alleged Rule violations contained in both complaints admitted

by virtue of Cloud’s default. See Bar Rule 4-212(a). After the Special

Master directed the parties to submit briefs about the appropriate

level of discipline, which Cloud failed to do, the Special Master

issued his report and recommendation that Cloud be disbarred.

3
2. Special Master’s Report and Recommendation

(a) Based on the factual allegations contained in the Formal

Complaints, which were deemed admitted by Cloud’s default, the

Special Master found as follows.

Cloud was administratively suspended from the practice of law

on July 1, 2021, for failing to pay State Bar dues. He remains

suspended. Cloud has not responded to any communication from the

State Bar or the Special Master throughout the duration of these

disciplinary proceedings.

Relevant to SDBD No. 7779, in 2018, the client—a tattoo

business—paid Cloud $2,500 to represent its interests in a dispute

involving a competing tattoo business, which resulted in Cloud filing

a lawsuit in superior court on March 26, 2019, on the client’s behalf.

But, on September 1, 2020, Cloud became ineligible to practice law

in Georgia after failing to pay his State Bar dues.1 Cloud did not

1 Bar Rule 1-501(a) states that, “[u]pon the failure of a member to pay

the license fee by September 1, the member shall cease to be a member in good
standing,” and Bar Rule 1-203 states that, “[n]o person shall practice law in
this state unless such person is an active member of the State Bar of Georgia
in good standing.”
4
notify the superior court, opposing counsel, or the client about his

ineligibility to practice law. He also failed to withdraw as counsel of

record in the pending lawsuit. On November 10, 2020, opposing

counsel served Cloud with discovery requests. After Cloud failed to

respond to those requests, and after opposing counsel made several

attempts to contact Cloud, opposing counsel mailed a letter to Cloud

on March 8, 2021, pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.4(b)

(“Rule 6.4(b) letter”) (requiring that counsel confer in good faith

before filing any motion seeking to resolve a discovery dispute).

Cloud failed to notify the client about the Rule 6.4(b) letter or to

advise the client that new counsel should be retained to represent

its interests. Instead, Cloud allowed the response deadline to pass

without acting on the matter. Consequently, on September 20, 2021,

opposing counsel filed a “Motion to Strike,” which was also sent

directly to the client. Following the hearing on the motion, which the

trial court treated as a motion to compel, the trial court issued an

order on September 23, 2021, entering a default judgment against

the client and awarding expenses and attorney’s fees to opposing

5
counsel. The trial court also ordered Cloud to file the client’s

discovery responses directly with the court as proof of Cloud’s

compliance with the trial court’s order and pay $500 to opposing

counsel as a sanction. However, Cloud failed to comply, and the

client was forced to pay the $500 sanction. In Spring 2022, the client

retained new counsel, who filed amended pleadings and proceeded

with the litigation. After new counsel was also unable to

communicate with Cloud, the client filed a grievance with the State

Bar.

Relevant to SDBD No. 7782, the client retained Cloud to

represent the client in reclaiming real property that was foreclosed

and sold in a tax sale. In June 2019, the client entrusted $12,000 to

Cloud for the purpose of reimbursing the purchaser of the property

for the amount that the purchaser paid at the tax sale, which would

have allowed the client to reclaim his property. After a year passed

without hearing from Cloud, the client learned that Cloud had not

used the funds for the property’s redemption. Although the client

6
attempted to contact Cloud, the client never received any response.

The client then filed a grievance with the State Bar.

(b) Based on the GRPC Rule violations charged by the Formal

Complaints, which were deemed admitted by Cloud’s default, the

Special Master concluded that Cloud’s conduct violated Rules 1.3,2

2 Rule 1.3 states that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and

promptness in representing a client,” and defines “reasonable diligence” to
mean 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.”
7
1.4(a), 3 1.4(b),4 1.15(I)(b),5 1.15(I)(c), 6 1.15(II)(a),7 1.16(d),8 3.2, 9

5.5(a), 10 and 8.4(a)(4).11 The Special Master then considered the

3 Rule 1.4(a) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall: “keep the client

reasonably informed about the status of the matter;” “promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information;” and “consult with the client about any
relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the
client expects assistance not permitted by the Georgia Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law.”
4 Rule 1.4(b) states that “a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent

reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions
regarding the representation.”
5 Rule 1.15(I)(b) states, in relevant part, that “a lawyer may not disregard

a third person’s interest in funds or other property in the lawyer’s possession.”
6 Rule 1.15(I)(c) states, in relevant part:

Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third
person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or
third person, … 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, upon request by the client or third person,
shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.
7 Rule 1.15(II)(a) states, in relevant part, that a lawyer who receives

money or property on a client’s behalf “shall maintain or have available one or
more trust accounts as required by these rules,” and that “[a]ll funds held by a
lawyer for a client and all funds held by a lawyer in any other fiduciary capacity
shall be deposited in and administered from a trust account.”
8 Rule 1.16(d) states that, upon terminating his or her 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.”
9 Rule 3.2 states that “[a] lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to

expedite litigation consistent with the interest of the client.”
10 Rule 5.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not practice law in a

jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that

8
American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer

Sanctions (“ABA Standards”) in determining the appropriate level

of discipline in this case. See In the Matter of Breault, 318 Ga. 127,

127 (2024) (citing In the Matter of Cook, 311 Ga. 306 (2021)

(explaining that, while not controlling, the ABA Standards are

“generally instructive as to the question of punishment”)); In the

Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (1996). Thus, as instructed by ABA

Standard 3.0, the Special Master considered the duty violated by

Cloud’s conduct, Cloud’s mental state at the time, the potential or

actual injury caused by Cloud’s misconduct, and the existence of any

aggravating or mitigating factors. See ABA Standard 3.0 (when

imposing a sanction, a court should consider “the duty violated,” “the

lawyer’s mental state,” “the potential or actual injury caused by the

lawyer’s misconduct,” and “the existence of aggravating or

mitigating factors”).

jurisdiction or assist another in doing so.”
11 Rule 8.4(a)(4) states that a lawyer violates the Georgia Rules of

Professional Conduct when he “engage[s] in professional conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
9
The Special Master first concluded that the duty Cloud violated

was to his clients and that he had a duty to consult and communicate

with his clients and to perform the work for which he was hired. The

Special Master further concluded that Cloud had a duty to preserve

his clients’ property and to not engage in dishonest conduct. Noting

that only the State Bar’s allegations and arguments were available

in determining the appropriate discipline, as Cloud failed to

respond to or participate in the disciplinary proceedings, the Special

Master concluded that Cloud had intentionally violated these duties:

the duty to preserve the clients’ property, see ABA Standard 4.1; the

duty of diligence, see ABA Standard 4.4; and the duty of candor, see

ABA Standard 4.6. The Special Master further considered that, for

each of these duty violations, the ABA Standards generally deem

disbarment as an appropriate penalty. See ABA Standards 4.11

(disbarment generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly

converts client property and causes the client injury or potential

injury), 4.41 (disbarment generally appropriate when a lawyer: (a)

abandons the practice and causes the client serious or potentially

10
serious injury; (b) knowingly fails to perform services for a client and

causes the client serious or potentially serious injury; or (c) engages

in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and causes the

client serious or potentially serious injury), and 4.61 (disbarment is

generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client

with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes the

client serious or potentially serious injury).

The Special Master then concluded that Cloud’s actions were

“knowing,” rather than inadvertent or negligent, because Cloud took

on the representation of these two clients, was aware of the

circumstances involved in each client’s case, knew what his clients

needed from him, and knowingly failed to act on behalf of his clients.

See ABA Standards, II: Theoretical Framework (defining knowledge

as “the conscious awareness of the nature or attendant

circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or

purpose to accomplish a particular result.”).

The Special Master further concluded that Cloud’s conduct

resulted in harm to both clients—that is, Cloud’s tattoo-business

11
client (SDBD No. 7779) was forced to pay sanctions due to Cloud’s

failure to act during litigation and had to retain new counsel, and

Cloud’s property-redemption client (SDBD No. 7782) lost $12,000,

which was converted by Cloud “for unknown reasons,” and the client

was consequently unable to reclaim his property.

The Special Master also concluded that several aggravating

factors apply to Cloud, including that Cloud had a dishonest or

selfish motive, as he converted client funds for his own personal use;

Cloud displayed a pattern of misconduct, as he engaged in a pattern

of neglect toward his clients and failed to perform work for his

clients; Cloud committed multiple offenses, in that he violated eight

Rules of the GRPC in two matters; and, lastly, Cloud has substantial

experience in the practice of law.12 See ABA Standard 9.22(b), (c),

(d), (e), and (i). Concerning any mitigating factors, the Special

12 The Special Master also found that Cloud committed bad-faith
obstruction by intentionally failing to comply with the Rules and any orders of
the disciplinary agency, failing to respond to grievances, failing to participate
in the disciplinary proceedings to include being in default, and failing to
respond to the Special Master’s email. However, we do not consider these
findings in determining the appropriate level of discipline, given that the other
aggravating factors are more than sufficient to justify disbarment.
12
Master concluded that Cloud’s lack of a prior disciplinary record was

the only mitigating factor present in his case. See ABA Standard

9.32(a).

Finally, noting that this Court has previously disbarred

attorneys who engaged in similar conduct, the Special Master

recommended disbarment and cited the following opinions as

support: In the Matter of Haklin, 321 Ga. 530 (2025) (disbarring a

lawyer with no prior discipline, who violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a),

and 1.5 in one matter and defaulted in the disciplinary proceedings);

In the Matter of Jackson, 321 Ga. 256 (2025) (disbarring a lawyer

with no prior discipline, who violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4(a) in

one matter and failed to participate in the disciplinary process); In

the Matter of Perry, 318 Ga. 155 (2024) (disbarring a lawyer who

violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(I), 1.16, and 3.2 in three matters and

failed to respond to the disciplinary proceedings); In the Matter of

Lawrence, 315 Ga. 723 (2023) (disbarring a lawyer with no prior

discipline, who violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(I), 1.15(III),

1.16, 8.1, 8.4, and 9.3 in one matter and failed to participate in the

13
disciplinary process); In the Matter of Power, 314 Ga. 504 (2023)

(disbarring a lawyer with no prior discipline, who violated Rules 1.2,

1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(I), 1.15(II), 1.15(III), 1.16, and 9.3 in three matters

and defaulted in the disciplinary proceedings); In the Matter of

Blain, 315 Ga. 475 (2023) (disbarring a lawyer with no prior

discipline, who violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4 in one matter and

intentionally failed to comply with Bar rules concerning the

disciplinary process); In the Matter of Holliday, 308 Ga. 216 (2020)

(disbarring a lawyer with no prior discipline, who violated Rules 1.2,

1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, and 8.4 in three matters and failed to respond to

the disciplinary proceedings).

3. Analysis

Given that Cloud is deemed to have admitted every factual

allegation and alleged Rule violation in the formal complaints due

to default, we agree with the Special Master that Cloud has violated

Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.15(I)(b), 1.15(I)(c), 1.15(II)(a), 1.16(d), 3.2,

5.5(a), and 8.4(a)(4); that disbarment is an appropriate sanction in

this case based on the severity of Cloud’s misconduct in connection

14
with two clients; and that disbarment is consistent with the similar

cases cited by the Special Master.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Joseph

William Cloud be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to

practice law in the State of Georgia. Cloud is reminded of his duties

pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219(b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.