A divided Georgia Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a disciplinary complaint against an Atlanta attorney who has made a name for himself fighting taxpayer-subsidized development.
The court said the State Bar of Georgia had failed to prove that attorney John Woodham had violated the rules of professional conduct in 2008 when he suggested to Midtown developers he would dismiss a challenge to a bond-validation proceeding if they paid him $1.3 million. That amounted to 1 percent of the bond issuance amount.
The 5-2 opinion was years in the making. In June 2012, the court rejected the Bar’s recommendation that Woodham receive a reprimand for his conduct, saying the legal disciplinary organization had given “too little weight to the seriousness of the many allegations.” At that time, the court told the State Bar to consider “a full array of ethical violations” against Woodham and return with another recommendation.
The State Bar did just that, and an appointed attorney who oversaw the ethics proceedings recommended that Woodham receive a three-month suspension from the practice of law and a public reprimand. A State Bar review panel then recommended a six-month suspension and a reprimand.
On Monday, however, the state Supreme Court found that the State Bar had failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Woodham committed ethical violations.
In dissent, Justice Robert Benham, joined by Justice Carol Hunstein, said Woodham tried to “shake down” developers.
“… Woodham dishonestly utilized his complaints in intervention for the improper purpose of attempting to gain a small fortune for himself,” Benham wrote. He said he believed Woodham engaged in “unprofessional conduct involving a dishonest, fraudulent and deceitful misuse of civil process.”
The court’s five-member majority said it too was “troubled by the conduct proved in the record.”
“Woodham may have acted badly, he may have attempted to misuse a legal process and he may have attempted to get money to which he had no legal claim,” the majority said. “[B]ut 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.’”
About the Author
