In the Matter of Matthew Jason Anderson

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
No. S26Y0638
In the Matter of Matthew Jason Anderson

Decided: May 19, 2026

PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of
Discipline encompassing four separate grievances and seeking to
disbar Matthew Jason Anderson (State Bar No. 765493) based on
his violations of Rules 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(I)(b) and (c), 1.15(II)(a),
1.15(III)(a), 8.1, and 8.4(a)(4) of the of Georgia Rules of Profes-
sional Conduct (“Rules”), see Bar Rule 4-102(d). The Bar has filed
a “Proof of Service,” establishing that Anderson was served with
the Notice of Discipline by publication in compliance with Bar
Rule 4-203.1(b)(3)(ii). Anderson, who is currently suspended from
the practice of law for his failure to respond to the Notice of In-
vestigation served on him in connection with several of these
cases, failed to timely reject the Notice of Discipline. Therefore,
he is in default, has no right to any evidentiary hearing, and is
subject to discipline and further proceedings as may be deter-
mined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1(b).
As noted above, this Notice of Discipline arose from four
separate grievances that were filed against Anderson in 2024 and
2025. Although the facts in each situation are slightly different,
generally, the facts show that Anderson, who has been a member
of the Bar since 2019, agreed to represent various clients in per-
sonal injury actions and obtained settlements on behalf of those
clients. Anderson was aware as these cases progressed that his
clients either had or would be obtaining services from medical
providers, and that the payment for those services would ulti-
mately need to come from the settlement funds. In 2023 and 2024,
Anderson settled these clients’ cases but failed, in all four cases,
to distribute the settlement funds to one or more of the medical
providers as he had agreed to do, and, in one case, he failed to
distribute to his client the portion of settlement funds due to that
client. In two cases, Anderson failed to respond to his clients’ re-
peated requests for information about the status of their cases,
including the status of the payments to their medical providers.
In one case, he told his client, and later claimed in a sworn re-
sponse to that client’s Bar grievance, that he had paid the client’s
outstanding medical bills when he had not done so. Additionally,
the Bar’s investigation of these grievances revealed that, during
the pertinent time frame, Anderson did not have a properly con-
stituted trust account that complied with the Rules.
Based on these facts, which are deemed admitted by An-
derson’s failure to reject the Notice of Discipline, the Bar con-
tends, and we agree, that Anderson violated Rule 1.4(a)(4)1 by
failing to promptly comply with his two clients’ requests for infor-
mation about the status of their cases, including the status of the
payment of their medical bills; Rule 1.15(I)(b) 2 by disregarding

1 Rule 1.4(a)(4) provides that “[a] lawyer shall promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information.” The maximum penalty for a violation of
this Rule is a public reprimand.
2 Rule 1.15(I)(b) provides that “a lawyer may not disregard a third per-
son’s interest in funds or other property in the lawyer’s possession if:
the interest is known to the lawyer, and
the interest is based upon one of the following:
A statutory lien;
A final judgment addressing disposition of those funds or property; or

2
the medical providers’ interests in the funds obtained from the
settlement of each of the four clients’ personal injury matters;
Rule 1.15(I)(c) 3 by failing to properly distribute settlement funds
to his one client and to the medical providers who were entitled
to receive payment from those funds; Rules 1.15(II)(a)4 and
1.15(III)(a) 5 by failing to maintain a trust account in an approved
institution and failing to deposit his clients’ settlement funds into

A written agreement by the client or the lawyer on behalf of the client
guaranteeing payment out of those funds or property.
The lawyer may disregard the third person’s claimed interest if the
lawyer reasonably concludes that there is a valid defense to such lien, judg-
ment, or agreement.” The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is dis-
barment.
3 Rule 1.15(I)(c) provides that “[u]pon 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. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted
by law or by agreement with the client, a 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, upon request by the client or third person, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.” The maximum
penalty for a violation of this Rule is disbarment.
4 Rule 1.15(II)(a) provides that “[e]very lawyer who practices law in
Georgia … and who receives money or property on behalf of a client or in any
other fiduciary capacity, shall maintain or have available one or more trust
accounts as required by these rules. All funds held by a lawyer for, or related
to the representation of, a client and all funds held by a lawyer in any other
fiduciary capacity related to the practice of law shall be deposited in and ad-
ministered from a trust account.” The maximum penalty for a violation of this
Rule is disbarment.
5 Rule 1.15(III)(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[e]very lawyer who
practices law in Georgia and who receives money or other property on behalf
of a client or in any other fiduciary capacity shall maintain, in an approved
financial institution as defined by this rule, a trust account or accounts, sepa-
rate from any business and personal accounts. Funds received by the lawyer
on behalf of a client or in any other fiduciary capacity shall be deposited into
this account.” The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is disbarment.

3
said account; Rule 8.1 6 by claiming in a sworn response submitted
to the Bar following one client’s grievance that he had paid off her
outstanding medical bills when he had not done so; and Rule
8.4(a)(4) 7 by telling his client that he had paid off her outstanding
medical bills when he had not done so.
The Bar correctly notes that this Court looks to the Amer-
ican Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
for guidance in determining the appropriate level of discipline.
See ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) (“ABA
Standards”); In the Matter of Morse, 265 Ga. 353, 354 (1995) (dis-
ciplinary authority should consider (a) the duty violated, (b) the
lawyer’s mental state, (c) the potential or actual injury caused by
the misconduct, and (d) aggravating and mitigating factors), su-
perseded on other grounds as stated in In the Matter of Cook, 311
Ga. 206, 214–15 (2021). Here, the Bar contends, and we agree,
that Anderson violated his duties to his clients, to third parties,
to the general public, and to the legal profession; that he did so
knowingly and intentionally; and that he caused serious actual
and potential injury to both his clients and third-party medical
providers, such that the presumptive discipline is disbarment.
Further, we agree with the Bar’s contentions that there ap-
pear to be no factors in mitigation and that, in aggravation, An-
derson acted with a dishonest or selfish motive in failing to dis-
tribute the settlement funds to his clients and the third parties
who had an interest in the funds; that he engaged in a pattern of

6 Rule 8.1(a) provides, in relevant part, that “a lawyer … in connection
with a disciplinary matter, shall not knowingly make a false statement of ma-
terial fact.” The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is disbarment.
7 Rule 8.4(a)(4) provides that it is a violation of the GRPC for a lawyer
to “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or mis-
representation.” The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is disbar-
ment.

4
misconduct as evidenced by his actions in these four cases; that
he engaged in multiple offenses in each case; that he engaged in
bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process by failing to
timely and sufficiently respond to the Notices of Investigation is-
sued in these cases and by ignoring numerous requests for infor-
mation from the Bar; that he made false statements during the
disciplinary process when responding to the allegations in one cli-
ent’s grievance; that at least two of his victims were vulnerable
clients who trusted him to distribute their settlement funds
promptly and appropriately; and that he has displayed an indif-
ference to making restitution to any of the complainants in these
four matters. See ABA Standards 9.22(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), and
(j).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the facts, as
deemed admitted by virtue of Anderson’s default, support the
Bar’s allegations that Anderson violated Rules 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(I)(b)
and (c), 1.15(II)(a), 1.15(III)(a), 8.1, and 8.4(a)(4). Further, we con-
clude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case and
that it is consistent with that imposed in similar cases. See In the
Matter of Clemmons, 297 Ga. 732 (2015) (disbarring lawyer on a
notice of discipline where lawyer violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4,
1.15(I), 1.15(II), 8.1, and 8.4(a)(4) by settling client’s personal in-
jury action without the client’s knowledge or consent, failing to
distribute settlement funds, failing to maintain client funds in a
trust account, and making false statements in her response to the
Investigative Panel); In the Matter of Willis, 293 Ga. 781 (2013)
(disbarring lawyer for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.15(I)(a) and (b),
1.15 (II)(a), and 8.4(a)(4) when attorney, who did not maintain a
trust account, deposited $30,000 of client settlement funds in his
personal or business account, converted the funds to his own use,
and failed to distribute the funds in accordance with a court or-
der). Accordingly, we hereby order that the name Matthew Jason

5
Anderson be removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice
law in the State of Georgia. Anderson is reminded of his duties
under Bar Rule 4-219(b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

6