CourtListener 10845990

Texte intégral

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 17, 2026

S26Y0233. IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES BRUCE
SINGLETON, JR.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board (“Review

Board”), which reviewed the report and recommendation of Special

Master Chong J. Kim at the request of Charles Bruce Singleton, Jr.

(State Bar No. 649057), who has been a member of the State Bar

since 1996. The Review Board agreed with the Special Master that

Singleton violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.16(d), 3.5(d),

and 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”

or “Rules”) found in Bar Rule 4-102(d) in connection with three client

matters and that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for

Singleton’s violations. The maximum penalty for a violation of Rules
1.4(a), 1.16(d), and 3.5(d) is a public reprimand, whereas the

maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.15(I)(a), and

8.4(a)(4) is disbarment. Although Singleton filed exceptions to the

Special Master’s report and recommendation before the Review

Board, he has not filed exceptions to the Review Board’s report and

recommendation before this Court. After our review of the record,

we agree that disbarment from the practice of law is the appropriate

sanction.

1. Procedural History

On November 29, 2023, the State Bar filed two formal

complaints in connection with two client matters, charging

Singleton with several Rule violations. In State Disciplinary Board

(“SDB”) Docket No. 7664, the State Bar alleged that Singleton was

hired to represent a client in a probate matter and stopped

communicating with the client and performing work in his case. The

State Bar charged Singleton with violations of Rules 1.2(a) (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

2
by which they are to be pursued); 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); 1.4(a)

(a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status

of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for

information); and 1.16(d) (upon termination of representation, a

lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practical to protect

a client’s interests, including refunding any advance payment of fee

that has not been earned). In SDB Docket No. 7665, the State Bar

alleged that Singleton was hired to represent a client in a lawsuit

filed against her arising out of an outstanding credit card balance

and stopped communicating with the client and performing work in

her case. The State Bar charged Singleton with violations of Rules

1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4(a). Singleton timely filed his responses, in which

he admitted violating Rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(a) in SDB Docket No.

7664. Singleton denied violating the other Rules with which he was

charged.

On March 14, 2024, the State Bar filed a third formal

complaint against Singleton (SDB Docket No. 7830), in which it

3
alleged that Singleton was hired to represent a minor in a personal

injury action, failed to release settlement funds in his possession

despite multiple court orders directing him to do so, and stopped

communicating with the conservator for the minor. The State Bar

charged Singleton with violations of Rules 1.15(I)(a) (a lawyer shall

hold funds or other property of clients or third persons that are in a

lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate

from the lawyer’s own funds); 3.5(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in

conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal); and 8.4(a)(4) (it shall be a

violation of the GRPC for a lawyer to engage in professional conduct

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Singleton

acknowledged service of the complaint. However, he failed to timely

file an answer as required by Bar Rule 4-212(a), and the State Bar

filed a motion for default. Singleton filed a response to the State

Bar’s default motion, in which he stated that he had a meritorious

defense to the Rule 3.5(d) violation because he did not “intend” to

disrupt the tribunal. On June 27, 2024, the Special Master granted

the motion for default, explaining that Singelton did not file a

4
verified answer to the formal complaint nor did he provide any facts

which would provide a basis for opening the default. Singleton did

not further challenge the grant of default and later testified that he

had no defense to the allegations in the formal complaint.

The Special Master then scheduled an evidentiary hearing in

SDB Docket Nos. 7664 and 7665 and a hearing on mitigating and

aggravating circumstances in SDB Docket No. 7830. Following these

hearings, the Special Master issued her report and recommendation.

2. Special Master’s Report and Recommendation

(a) Factual Findings

(i) SDB Docket No. 7664

In November 2020, the client hired Singleton to probate his

mother’s will. Per the retainer agreement, Singleton quoted the

client $2,500 for the representation, and the client paid Singleton a

$1,000 initial payment. On November 20, 2020, Singleton filed in

the probate court a petition to probate the will, executor’s oath, and

acknowledgement of service and assent to probate. However, for the

estate to be opened, Singleton was required to file heir notification

5
letters for the client’s siblings. On December 14, 2020, the client

emailed Singleton asking him to mail the heir notification letters to

his siblings and asking if he needed a copy of his mother’s death

certificate. Singleton failed to respond. On January 11, 2021, the

client emailed Singleton stating that he had tried to reach him and

asking about the status of the notification letters. Singleton again

failed to respond. The client then contacted the probate court and

learned that nothing had been filed since the initial documents. The

client asked Singleton to forward the notification letters so that the

client could send them to the court himself. Singleton failed to

respond, and the client filed a grievance with the State Bar. On

August 15, 2021, Singleton emailed the client apologizing for the

delay in moving forward with the estate matter and informing the

client that Singleton was going through personal difficulties. On

August 21, 2021, the client emailed Singleton to terminate the

representation and asked Singleton to send an itemized bill for the

services rendered and to refund the unused portion of the initial fee.

Singleton did not respond to the client until March 24, 2022, when

6
he sent the client an email to ask the best way to refund the fee.

However, Singleton failed to refund the fee.

The Special Master further recounted that at the evidentiary

hearing, the client testified that during the time of Singleton’s

representation, his family was very distraught and going through

an emotional time. The client also testified that he felt Singleton

abandoned him and had “ridden off into the sunset” with the

retainer fee. Additionally, the client stated that his family had to

prepare and submit the applicable forms themselves so that the

estate could be opened.

(ii) SDB Docket No. 7665

In August 2020, the client in this matter hired Singleton to

represent her in a dispute with a bank after the bank filed a lawsuit

against her regarding an outstanding credit card balance. Singleton

failed to timely file an answer to the complaint and did not enter an

appearance in the case until October 19, 2020, which was over a

month after the deadline to file an answer had passed. On October

23, 2020, counsel for the bank filed a motion for default judgment.

7
Singleton failed to respond to the motion for default and failed to tell

the client about the motion. On November 6, 2020, the client emailed

Singleton asking if he did any work on her case. On November 9,

2020, Singleton emailed the client and informed her that he was

discussing settlement terms with the bank. The client told Singleton

that she was agreeable to paying a monthly amount around $300.

Singleton negotiated a settlement on behalf of the client with the

bank’s counsel. However, on December 1, 2020, the court entered a

default judgment against the client for $12,691.67, $800 in attorney

fees, and costs of $307.50. A paralegal for the bank informed

Singleton that the bank would still honor the settlement agreement,

and on January 7, 2021, the paralegal sent Singleton the settlement

agreement for the client to execute. Per the agreement, the client

was to start making payments on January 9, 2021. However,

Singleton did not provide the agreement to the client nor discuss its

terms with her, such that the client was unaware of the agreement

and did not make any payments in January 2021. On January 20,

2021, the bank filed a writ of fieri facias, and a lien was placed on

8
the client’s home for the principal amount owed by the client as well

as the attorney fees and court costs. On February 11, 2021, the

bank’s paralegal emailed Singleton to follow up on the settlement

agreement. Singleton did not respond.

Between November 2020 and March 2021, the client did not

hear from Singleton. In March 2021, the client learned about the

bank’s judgment and discovered that there was a lien on her home

and that the bank garnished her bank account for failure to make

payments per the agreement. On March 11, 2021, the client emailed

Singleton, but he did not respond. On March 15, 2021, the client

emailed Singleton again. Singleton responded and told the client

that he was working with opposing counsel. On this same day, the

bank’s counsel emailed Singleton to ask if he still represented the

client. Singleton responded that he was representing the client and

that she intended to move forward with the settlement. Opposing

counsel informed Singleton that he no longer had authority to enter

into the negotiated settlement, and Singleton asked opposing

counsel to obtain authority from the bank to proceed with the

9
settlement. On March 18, 2021, opposing counsel emailed Singleton

to inform him that he had approval from the bank. However, again

Singleton failed to inform the client about the agreement.

On March 24, 2021, the client emailed Singleton to ask if he

had reached an agreement with the bank’s counsel. Singleton did

not respond. On April 13, 2021, the client emailed Singleton and

terminated the representation. Again, Singleton failed to respond.

On June 1, 2021, the client emailed Singleton to inform him that she

was considering filing a malpractice claim and State Bar complaint

against him. The client proposed a settlement to Singleton of

$12,500. On June 8, 2021, Singleton replied to the client and

informed her that he would respond to her demand within 10 days.

However, Singleton failed to respond within 10 days. In July 2021,

the client filed a grievance with the State Bar, after which Singleton

and the client negotiated her demand down to $5,000. However,

Singleton never followed through on making any payments.

The Special Master also recounted that at the evidentiary

hearing, the client testified that she felt Singleton owed her

10
restitution for his failure to adequately represent her because she

was unable to refinance her home at a lower rate and her credit

suffered as a result of the judgment and lien against her.

Additionally, the client testified that she made her last payment to

the bank in December 2024 and was still waiting for the lien to be

removed. Further, the client testified that because of Singleton’s

misconduct, it cost her more to hire Singleton as her attorney than

if she had tried to negotiate with the bank herself.

(iii) SDB Docket No. 7830

Around 2021, Singleton represented a minor in a personal

injury action and received $35,388.83 in settlement funds belonging

to the minor, which Singleton deposited in his trust account. The

conservator for the minor made several requests to Singleton to

release the settlement funds in Singleton’s possession. Singleton did

not respond to the requests, nor did he release the settlement funds.

On July 18, 2022, the conservator filed a motion to compel the

release of the funds. The court granted the motion; ordered

Singleton to release the funds by September 30, 2022; and informed

11
him that failure to do so could result in a finding of contempt.

Singleton failed to release the funds by September 30, 2022, and on

October 3, 2022, Singleton filed a motion to extend time to comply

with the court’s order. On October 6, 2022, the court entered an

order granting Singleton an extension through October 17, 2022.

Again, Singleton failed to release the funds. On November 21, 2022,

the conservator filed a motion for contempt due to Singleton’s failure

to turn over the funds as ordered. Singleton filed a response to the

motion, admitting that he failed to safeguard the minor’s funds and

explaining that he was experiencing a multitude of personal

issues—including a divorce, death of loved ones, and the financial

impact of the pandemic—and that he began receiving treatment

from a therapist. On January 13, 2023, the court conducted a

hearing on the motion and found Singleton in civil contempt for

failing to pay the funds belonging to the minor. The court ordered

that Singleton be incarcerated until January 17, 2023, or until he

paid the full amount of funds. Singleton did not pay the funds by

January 17, 2023, and the court held another hearing to determine

12
whether he should be released from incarceration. The court then

entered an order that he be released and that he pay the funds by

June 15, 2023. Singleton did not pay the $35,388.83 to the

conservator by June 15, 2023. The Special Master noted that, as of

April 2025, Singleton had made only three payments to the

conservator: $8,000 in May 2023 and $4,500 and $2,000 in October

2023.

(b) Rule Violations

(i) SDB Docket No. 7664

The Special Master determined that Singleton violated Rules

1.2(a) by being hired to probate the client’s mother’s will but failing

to communicate with the client about what needed to be submitted

to open the estate; 1.3 by failing to submit documents from the

client’s siblings to finalize the estate; 1.4(a) by failing to

communicate with the client despite the client’s multiple attempts

to contact him; and 1.16(d) by failing to refund the unearned fee to

the client after Singleton’s termination.

(ii) SDB Docket No. 7665

13
The Special Master determined that Singleton violated Rules

1.2(a) by being hired to represent the client in the dispute with the

bank but failing to communicate with the client about the settlement

agreement and her obligations under the agreement; 1.3 by failing

to answer the complaint on behalf of the client, failing to finalize the

settlement, and failing to provide the settlement documents to the

client; and 1.4(a) by failing to keep the client updated on the status

of the settlement negotiations and failing to tell the client that he

reached an agreement and that the client needed to start making

payments.

(iii) SDB Docket No. 7830

Based on Singleton’s default, the Special Master determined

that Singleton violated Rules 1.15(I)(a) by failing to safeguard and

account for the minor’s settlement funds in his possession; 3.5(d) by

disregarding the probate court’s orders to release the settlement

funds to the conservator, unnecessarily expending court resources

by requiring the court to issue multiple orders and hold multiple

14
hearings; and Rule 8.4(a)(4) by mishandling the minor’s settlement

funds and converting the funds for personal use.

The Special Master then applied the framework set out in the

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) (“ABA

Standards”), which provides that, when imposing a sanction, “a

court should consider the following factors: (a) the duty violated; (b)

the lawyer’s mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused

by the lawyer’s misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or

mitigating factors.” ABA Standard 3.0. In assessing the duty

violated, the Special Master determined that Singleton violated

several duties owed to his clients, including the duty of diligence,

the duty to consult and communicate, and the duty to perform the

work for which he was hired. In assessing Singleton’s mental state,

the Special Master determined that Singleton’s actions were

knowing rather than inadvertent or negligent, as he knew that his

clients had attempted to contact him on numerous occasions, knew

that he did not perform the work he was hired to do, and knew that

15
he converted the minor’s settlement funds for personal expenses due

to his financial difficulties. In assessing the injuries caused, the

Special Master determined that Singleton’s conduct caused harm to

his clients, as the client in SDB Docket No. 7664 testified at the

evidentiary hearing that she was unable to refinance her home at a

lower rate and her credit suffered because of the judgment against

her, his client in SDB Docket No. 7665 faced a delay in opening the

estate to resolve any outstanding debts and finalize his mother’s

affairs, and the minor in SDB Docket No. 7830 was robbed of his

settlement and still has not received the funds to which he is

entitled.

The Special Master also determined that the following

aggravating factors applied. Singelton had a prior disciplinary

offense, as he received a confidential reprimand in January 2020 for

violating Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a)(4). See ABA Standard 9.22(a).

Singleton had a dishonest or selfish motive, as Singleton stole his

client’s settlement. See ABA Standard 9.22(b). Singleton had a

pattern of misconduct, as he engaged in a pattern of failing to

16
perform work for his clients. See ABA Standard 9.22(c). Singleton

committed multiple offenses, as his conduct violated several

provisions of the GRPC in three separate matters. See ABA

Standard 9.22(d). Singleton’s victims were vulnerable, as his clients

were going through difficult emotional times and one of his clients

was a minor who was injured. See ABA Standard 9.22(h). Singleton

had substantial experience in the practice of law, as he was admitted

to practice in 1996. See ABA Standard 9.22(i). Finally, Singleton

showed an indifference to making restitution, as he has yet to refund

his clients for the work he did not perform and has made only a few

payments to the conservator. See ABA Standard 9.22(j). The Special

Master determined that only two mitigating factors applied.

Singleton was experiencing personal or emotional problems, as he

testified at the hearing that he was suffering from a mental health

condition that affected his ability to practice law,1 was in the midst

1 Singleton also submitted a fitness evaluation completed by a
psychiatrist. The psychiatrist concluded that Singleton suffered from a mental
health condition from early 2019 until mid-2022 and the condition greatly
affected his ability to practice law.

17
of a divorce, was grieving the loss of two family members, and was

facing financial difficulties during the pandemic. See ABA Standard

9.32(c). Additionally, Singelton showed remorse, as he appeared

remorseful for his conduct during his testimony. See ABA Standard

9.32(l).

(d) Recommended Discipline

The Special Master concluded that disbarment is the

appropriate penalty for Singleton’s Rule violations. In doing so, the

Special Master explained that such a sanction was imposed in

similar cases decided by this Court.

3. The Review Board’s Report and Recommendation

Singleton requested the Review Board review the Special

Master’s report and recommendation. The Review Board adopted

the Special Master’s findings of fact, conclusions of law as to the

Rules violated, and determinations regarding the ABA Standards.

As for the appropriate sanction, the Review Board explained that

while it was sympathetic that Singleton was suffering from mental

health issues when the violations occurred, disbarment was

18
appropriate, as his actions in SDB Docket No. 7830 were “especially

egregious.” Therefore, the Review Board recommended that

Singleton be disbarred from the practice of law.

4. Analysis

Singleton does not challenge the Review Board’s report and

recommendation of disbarment before this Court. After our review

of the record, we agree that Singleton has violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3,

1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.16(d), and 8.4(a)(4) and that disbarment is the

appropriate sanction in this case, as this sanction has been imposed

in similar cases.2 See In the Matter of Raines, 322 Ga. 593 (2025)

(attorney with no prior disciplinary history disbarred for violating

Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.15(II)(b), and 8.4(a)(4) in

connection with three client matters where attorney stopped

communicating with his clients, failed to perform work in their

2 Because we conclude that disbarment is warranted for Singleton’s
violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.15(II)(b), and 8.4(a)(4), we
pretermit the question of whether Singleton violated Rule 3.5(d) by “engag[ing]
in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.” See In the Matter of Morris, 302 Ga.
862, 864 n.3 (2018) (declining to reach question of whether attorney violated
Rule 8.4(a)(3) because attorney clearly violated other Rules for which
disbarment was appropriate).

19
cases, and dishonestly converted client funds for personal use); In

the Matter of Holliday, 308 Ga. 216 (2020) (attorney with no prior

disciplinary history disbarred for violating Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a),

1.16(d), 3.2, and 8.4(a)(4) where attorney stopped communicating

with her clients, failed to perform work on their cases, and failed to

timely return unearned fees); In the Matter of McGowan, 322 Ga.

349 (2025) (attorney with no prior disciplinary history disbarred for

violating Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(I)(a), 1.15(I)(c), 1.15(I)(d),

1.15(II)(b), 8.4(a)(4), and 9.3 where attorney converted client funds

for personal use and showed an indifference in making restitution).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Charles

Bruce Singleton, Jr. be removed from the rolls of persons authorized

to practice law in the State of Georgia. Singleton is reminded of his

duties under Bar Rule 4-219(b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.