The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a disciplinary complaint against an Atlanta attorney who has made a name for himself fighting taxpayer-subsidized development.
In a 5-2 opinion, the court said a State Bar of Georgia panel had failed to prove that attorney John Woodham engaged in dishonest, fraudulent or deceitful behavior in a 2008 bond deal. Woodham filed a court challenge to block $130 million in bonds but then told the developers on the project that he would withdraw his complaint in exchange for $1.3 million.
The state Supreme Court’s majority said it did not dispute characterizations that Woodham’s conduct was “egregious, improper and appalling.” But the majority said the State Bar panel that recommended Woodham be disciplined based its decision upon a faulty premise.
Woodham declined to comment Monday. The attorney has long been a thorn in the side of local governments. In February 2008, he convinced the state Supreme Court that it was illegal to use school taxes to subsidize development near the Atlanta Beltline. His challenge stalled financing of Beltline projects and prompted a change in the state Constitution.
In November 2008, Woodham filed complaints challenging $130 million in bonds for two developments managed by Tivoli Properties: an apartment tower on Peachtree Road in Buckhead and a future apartment project in Midtown. Specifically, Woodham was opposing a “bond validation,” a proceeding in which a judge must determine whether bonds issued by a public agency are legal and binding. Woodham alleged the Atlanta Development Authority bonds were an unconstitutional tax abatement in favor of the developer.
After filing his complaint, Woodham contacted Tivoli. The company’s president, Scott Leventhal, and his lawyer, Patricia Roy, said they would not tape a conference call with Woodham and said the call would remain confidential, the Supreme Court’s opinion said.
But Leventhal recorded the call and later disclosed what was said. During the call, Woodham said he did not have an issue with the developers but believed the bond transactions were illegal. Woodham then said he’d dismiss his complaints if the developers paid 1 percent of the bond issuance to him and his client, Citizens for Ethics in Government.
An ethics complaint was then filed, and a State Bar review panel recommended that Woodham receive a reprimand for his conduct. Then the matter took an unexpected turn.
In June 2012 the state Supreme Court rejected the State Bar’s recommendation, saying it had given “too little weight to the seriousness of the many allegations.” The court instructed the State Bar to consider “a full array of ethical violations” against Woodham and return with another recommendation.
The State Bar did just that. A review panel later recommended Woodham be suspended from the practice of law for six months and receive a public reprimand.
On Monday, however, the state Supreme Court found that the State Bar had failed to prove that Woodham committed ethical violations.
In a stinging dissent, Justice Robert Benham, joined by Justice Carol Hunstein, agreed that Woodham should be suspended for six months. Woodham tried to “shake down” developers and “dishonestly utilized his complaints in intervention for the improper purpose of attempting to gain a small fortune for himself,” Benham wrote.
The court’s majority said Woodham may have acted badly, may have tried to misuse a legal process and may have tried to get money to which he had no legal claim. “But there is no evidence that he misled or attempted to mislead the developers about the filing of the complaints … (and) we do not think this conduct can be fairly characterized as ‘dishonest.’”
After Woodham told developers he would drop his complaint if it paid him 1 percent of the bond deal, his offer was disclosed to the judge overseeing the bond validation. Woodham then sent a letter in which he said he only intended to ask for 0.1 percent — or $130,000 — of the bond amount and that he intended to give the money to a homeless shelter. But the judge and a lawyer appointed to oversee the State Bar disciplinary proceedings found this to be a misrepresentation of Woodham’s actual intent at the time.
In Monday’s opinion, the state Supreme Court’s majority noted the State Bar did not charge Woodham with misconduct for this, and it declined to express an opinion as to whether such conduct violated ethical rules.
About the Author
