Uninsured Motorist Benefits in Light of Thurman v. State Farm

JOURNAL

GEORGIA BAR

Volume 23, Number 2October 2017

From the President—

In Praise of Local Bar

Associations

Legal Tech Tips

State Bar Bike Law

Section Rolls In

A Conversation with

Cathy Cox

Uninsured Motorist

Benets in Light of

Thurman v. State Farm

THE STATE BAR OF GEORGIA ANNOUNCES ITS ANNUAL

DEADLINE: JANUARY 12, 2018

The Editorial Board of the Georgia Bar Journal is pleased to announce that it will sponsor its Annual

Fiction Writing Contest in accordance with the rules set forth below. The purposes of this competition

are to enhance interest in the Journal, to encourage excellence in writing by members of the Bar and

to provide an innovative vehicle for the illustration of the life and work of lawyers. For more information,

contact Sarah I. Coole, Director of Communications, 404-527-8791 or sarahc@gabar.org.

FICTION WRITING

COMPETITION

1. The competition is open to any member in good

standing of the State Bar of Georgia, except

current members of the Editorial Board. Authors

may collaborate, but only one submission from

each member will be considered.

2. Subject to the following criteria, the article may

be on any fictional topic and may be in any form

(humorous, anecdotal, mystery, science fiction,

etc.). Among the criteria the Board will consider

in judging the articles submitted are: quality of

writing; creativity; degree of interest to lawyers

and relevance to their life and work; extent to

which the article comports with the established

reputation of the Journal; and adherence

to specified limitations on length and other

competition requirements. The Board will not

consider any article that, in the sole judgment of

the Board, contains matter that is libelous or that

violates accepted community standards of good

taste and decency.

3. All articles submitted to the competition become

the property of the State Bar of Georgia and, by

submitting the article, the author warrants that

all persons and events contained in the article are

fictitious, that any similarity to actual persons or

events is purely coincidental and that the article

has not been previously published.

4. Articles should not be more than 7,500 words in

length and should be submitted electronically.

5. Articles will be judged without knowledge of the

author’s identity. The author’s name and State Bar

ID number should be placed on a separate cover

sheet with the name of the story.

6. All submissions must be received at State Bar

headquarters in proper form prior to the close

of business on a date specified by the Board.

Submissions received after that date and time will

not be considered. Please direct all submissions

to: Sarah I. Coole, Director of Communications, by

email to [email protected]. If you do not receive

confirmation that your entry has been received,

please call 404-527-8791.

7. Depending on the number of submissions, the Board

may elect to solicit outside assistance in reviewing

the articles. The final decision, however, will be

made by majority vote of the Board. Contestants

will be advised of the results of the competition by

letter. Honorable mentions may be announced.

8. The winning article, if any, will be published.

The Board reserves the right to edit articles and

to select no winner and to publish no article

from among those submitted if the submissions

are deemed by the Board not to be of notable

quality.

THE STATE BAR OF GEORGIA ANNOUNCES ITS ANNUAL

DEADLINE: JANUARY 12, 2018

The Editorial Board of the Georgia Bar Journal is pleased to announce that it will sponsor its annual

Fiction Writing Contest in accordance with the rules set forth below. The purposes of this competition

are to enhance interest in the Journal, to encourage excellence in writing by members of the Bar and

to provide an innovative vehicle for the illustration of the life and work of lawyers. For more information,

contact Sarah I. Coole, Director of Communications, 404-527-8791 or sarahc@gabar.org.

FICTION WRITING

COMPETITION

1. The competition is open to any member in good

standing of the State Bar of Georgia, except

current members of the Editorial Board. Authors

may collaborate, but only one submission from

each member will be considered.

2. Subject to the following criteria, the article may

be on any fictional topic and may be in any form

(humorous, anecdotal, mystery, science fiction,

etc.). Among the criteria the Board will consider

in judging the articles submitted are: quality of

writing; creativity; degree of interest to lawyers

and relevance to their life and work; extent to

which the article comports with the established

reputation of the Journal; and adherence to

specified limitations on length and other

competition requirements. The Board will not

consider any article that, in the sole judgment of

the Board, contains matter that is libelous or that

violates accepted community standards of good

taste and decency.

3. All articles submitted to the competition become

the property of the State Bar of Georgia and, by

submitting the article, the author warrants that

all persons and events contained in the article are

fictitious, that any similarity to actual persons or

events is purely coincidental and that the article

has not been previously published.

4. Articles should not be more than 7,500 words in

length and should be submitted electronically.

5. Articles will be judged without knowledge of the

author’s identity. The author’s name and State Bar

ID number should be placed on a separate cover

sheet with the name of the story.

6. All submissions must be received at State Bar

headquarters in proper form prior to the close

of business on a date specified by the Board.

Submissions received after that date and time will

not be considered. Please direct all submissions

to: Sarah I. Coole, Director of Communications, by

email to [email protected]. If you do not receive

confirmation that your entry has been received,

please call 404-527-8791.

7. Depending on the number of submissions, the Board

may elect to solicit outside assistance in reviewing

the articles. The final decision, however, will be

made by majority vote of the Board. Contestants

will be advised of the results of the competition by

letter. Honorable mentions may be announced.

8. The winning article, if any, will be published.

The Board reserves the right to edit articles and

to select no winner and to publish no article from

among those submitted if the submissions are

deemed by the Board not to be of notable quality.

IS HEALTH INSURANCE...

We can help! Shop for your 2018

Health Insurance plan through the

Health Insurance

Exchange for members of

the State Bar of Georgia

IMPORTANT 2018 INDIVIDUAL OPEN ENROLLMENT DATES

November 1, 2017 First day you can shop for 2018 coverage.

December 15, 2017 Last day of 2018 Open Enrollment Period.

January 1, 2018 First date 2018 coverage can start.

Visit us at www.memberbenets.com/gabar

Products sold and serviced by the State Bar of Georgia’s recommended broker, Member Benets.

The State Bar of Georgia is not a licensed insurance entity and does not sell insurance.

DRIVING YOU BANANAS?

ADMINISTERED BY:

This Exchange oers Individual Health Plans

as well as Employer Group Health Plans.

2 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

COASTAL GEORGIA OFFICE

18 E. Bay St.

Savannah, GA 31401-1225

877-239-9910 | 912-239-9910

Fax 912-239-9970

SOUTH GEORGIA OFFICE

244 E. Second St. (31794)

P.O. Box 1390

Tifton, GA 31793-1390

800-330-0446 | 229-387-0446

Fax 229-382-7435

QUICK DIAL

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

800-334-6865 ext. 720

404-527-8720

CONSUMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

404-527-8759

CONFERENCE ROOM RESERVATIONS

404-419-0155

FEE ARBITRATION

404-527-8750

CLE TRANSCRIPTS

404-527-8710

DIVERSITY PROGRAM

404-527-8754

ETHICS HELPLINE

800-682-9806

404-527-8741

GEORGIA BAR FOUNDATION/IOLTA

404-588-2240

GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

404-527-8791

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

404-526-8608

ICLE

678-529-6688

LAWYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

800-327-9631

LAW PRACTICE MANAGEMENT

404-527-8773

LAW-RELATED EDUCATION

404-527-8785

MEMBERSHIP

404-527-8777

MEETINGS INFORMATION

404-527-8790

PRO BONO RESOURCE CENTER

404-527-8763

PROFESSIONALISM

404-225-5040

SECTIONS

404-527-8774

TRANSITION INTO LAW PRACTICE

404-527-8704

UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW

404-527-8743

YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION

404-527-8778

The opinions expressed in the Georgia Bar

Journal are those of the authors. The views

expressed herein are not necessarily those of the

State Bar of Georgia, its Board of Governors or

its Executive Committee.

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION

The Georgia Bar Journal welcomes the submission of

unsolicited legal manuscripts on topics of interest

to the State Bar of Georgia or written by members

of the State Bar of Georgia. Submissions should be

10 to 12 pages, double-spaced (including endnotes)

and on letter-size paper. Citations should conform

to A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (19th ed.

2010). Please address unsolicited articles to: Bridgette

Eckerson, State Bar of Georgia, Communications

Department, 104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 100, Atlanta,

GA 30303. Authors will be notified of the Editorial

Board’s decision regarding publication.

The Georgia Bar Journal welcomes the submission

of news about local and voluntary bar association

happenings, Bar members, law firms and topics of

interest to attorneys in Georgia. Please send news

releases and other information to: Sarah I. Coole,

Director of Communications, 104 Marietta St.

NW, Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404-527-8791;

[email protected].

DISABILITIES

If you have a disability which requires printed

materials in alternate formats, please call 404-526-

8627 for assistance.

PUBLISHER’S STATEMENT

The Georgia Bar Journal (ISSN-1085-1437) is published

six times per year (February, April, June, August,

October, December) with a special issue in November

by the State Bar of Georgia, 104 Marietta St. NW,

Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30303. Copyright State Bar of

Georgia 2017. One copy of each issue is furnished to

members as part of their State Bar dues. Subscriptions:

$36 to non-members. Single copies: $6. Periodicals

postage paid in Atlanta, Ga., and additional mailing

offices. Advertising rate card will be furnished upon

request. Publishing of an advertisement does not

imply endorsement of any product or service offered.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to same address.

EDITORIAL

BOARD

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Bridgette E. Eckerson

MEMBERS

Donald P. Boyle Jr.

J. Kyle Brooks

Rickie Lee Brown Jr.

Jacqueline F. Bunn

John Clay Bush

Timothy J. Colletti

Jacob E. Daly

Jake Evans

Lynn Gavin

Chad Henderson

Michelle J. Hirsch

Eric Hooper

Amber L. Nickell

Kevin Patrick

Kristin M.S. Poland

Pamela Y. White-Colbert

Mark W. Wortham

EDITORS EMERITUS

Timothy J. Colletti (2015-17)

Bridgette E. Eckerson (2012-15)

Robert R. Stubbs (2010-12)

Donald P. Boyle Jr. (2007-10)

Marcus D. Liner (2004-07)

Rebecca Ann Hoelting (2002-04)

Marisa Anne Pagnattaro (2001-02)

D. Scott Murray (2000-01)

William Wall Sapp (1999-00)

Theodore H. Davis Jr. (1997-99)

L. Brett Lockwood (1995-97)

Stephanie B. Manis (1993-95)

William L. Bost Jr. (1991-93)

Charles R. Adams III (1989-91)

L. Dale Owens (1987-89)

Donna G. Barwick (1986-87)

James C. Gaulden Jr. (1985-86)

Jerry B. Blackstock (1984-85)

Steven M. Collins (1982-84)

Walter M. Grant (1979-82)

Stephen E. Raville (1977-79)

OFFICERS OF THE

STATE BAR OF GEORGIA

PRESIDENT

Brian D. “Buck” Rogers

PRESIDENT-ELECT

Kenneth B. “Ken” Hodges III

TREASURER

Darrell L. Sutton

SECRETARY

Dawn M. Jones

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT

Patrick T. O’Connor

YLD PRESIDENT

Nicole C. Leet

YLD PRESIDENT-ELECT

Rizza P. O’Connor

YLD IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT

Jennifer C. Mock

COMMUNICATIONS

COMMITTEE

CO-CHAIR

Peter C. Canfield

CO-CHAIR

Sonjui L. Kumar

COMMUNICATIONS

DEPARTMENT

DIRECTOR

Sarah I. Coole

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Jennifer R. Mason

COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR

Stephanie J. Wilson

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

M. Lane Sosebee

HEADQUARTERS

104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 100

Atlanta, GA 30303

800-334-6865 | 404-527-8700

Fax 404-527-8717

www.gabar.org

OCTOBER 2017

2017 OCTOBER 3

October 2017 | Volume 23 | Number 2

JOURNAL

GEORGIA BAR

The

Legal

GBJ | The Features

UNINSURED MOTORIST

BENEFITS IN LIGHT OF

THURMAN V. STATE FARM

David J. Blevins

26 A Tapestry of Mentoring

MICHELLE E. WEST

28 Georgia Bar Foundation Funds Five

Proposals from Bank of America

Settlement Funds

LEN HORTON

30 The Baker County Courthouse

at Newton: The Grand Old

Courthouses of Georgia

WILBER W. CALDWELL

32 Notice of Expiring Board Terms

ISTOCK.COM/GIGI_MY_GIRL

4 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | In Every Issue

5 Editor’s Letter

6 From the President

10 From the YLD President

14 From the Executive

Director

15 Know Your Bar

36 Bench & Bar

43 Attorney Discipline

46 Legal Tech Tips

66 In Memoriam

69 CLE Calendar

70 Notice

71 Classified Resources

72 Advertisers Index

34 Georgia Lawyer Spotlight

A Conversation with

Cathy Cox

Jacob E. Daly

42 Oce of the General Counsel

How Do You Say “Help”?

Paula Frederick

48 Law Practice Management

Nurturing Your Practice with

Law Practice Management

Resources

Natalie R. Kelly

50 Pro Bono

Small but Mighty: Making

Pro Bono a Win-Win as a

Solo or Small Firm Attorney

Sarah Babcock

52 Pro Bono Star Story

Francesca A. Rehal

54 Section News

State Bar Bike Law Section

Rolls In

58 Member Benets

Member Benets: Providing

Bar Members with a Private

Insurance Exchange for Health

Dental, Vision and More

Sheila Baldwin

60 Writing Matters

Fact Statements Part II:

More than “Just the Facts”

Megan E. Boyd

63 Professionalism Page

Professionalism Committee

Celebrates 25th Year of Law

School Professionalism

Orientations

Nicole G. Iannarone and Robert Arrington

ISTOCK.COM/MATEJMO

2017 OCTOBER 5

The October Issue

EDITOR’S LETTER

VISIT

gabar.org

VIEW ONLINE

www.gabar.org/

newsandpublications/

georgiabarjournal/

Twitter

@StateBarofGA

@GeorgiaYLD

@iclega

Facebook

/statebarofgeorgia

/GeorgiaYLD

/iclega

Youtube

/StateBarofGeorgia

Flickr

/statebarofgeorgia

/yld

Instagram

@statebarofga

/state-bar-of-georgia

ON THE COVER

ISTOCK.COM/GIGI_MY_GIRL

BRIDGETTE E. ECKERSON

Editor-in-Chief, Georgia Bar Journal

[email protected]

In your daily practice of law, do you

ever think to yourself, “I wish I knew then

what I know now.”? Do you ever think

of what you’d tell your younger, fresh-

faced, eager-to-learn self as you began

law school? Which classes to take for your

chosen career path? How to navigate the

job search? Get more sleep, perhaps? In

this issue of the Georgia Bar Journal, you

can read about the reections of our State

Bar and YLD ocers on the most impor-

tant thing they would tell themselves as

rst-year law students. I’m sure you’ll see

a little bit of yourself in their reections.

Once that article puts you in the mood

to help others, please take a look at “Geor-

gia Lawyers Helping Lawyers” in our

executive director’s column. This article

discusses the new Lawyers Helping Law-

yers (LHL) peer-to-peer program, which is

designed to help lawyers struggling with

depression, substance abuse, and family

and workplace problems, among others.

Whether you or someone you know needs

help, or has experience with these com-

mon problems, the LHL program is a con-

dential resource for support.

Also, if you are considering undertak-

ing any pro bono work, this issue can

provide you with information to get you

started. Solo practitioners can turn to “Pro

bono–Small but Mighty: Making Pro

Bono a Win-Win as a Solo or Small Firm

Attorney” for a discussion of the benets

of pro bono work to your practice as a

whole while serving the community. The

YLD president’s column also discusses the

“misconceptions” that surround pro bono

practice for younger lawyers who are won-

dering how to incorporate pro bono work

into the early years of their practice.

This issue’s legal article, “Uninsured

Motorist Benets in Light of Thurman v.

State Farm,” by David J. Blevins, oers

an interpretation of the exception to the

derivative claim rule in cases involving

traditional uninsured motorist policies

as laid out in the Thurman case. As he

notes, this thorny issue has “bedeviled”

practitioners, and his interpretation will

assist anyone who confronts this issue in

their practice.

Also in this issue, you will nd many

helpful tips for your daily practice. Wheth-

er it’s advice on when it’s time to hire an

interpreter, writing your statement of facts

or resources for managing your practice,

this issue oers many insightful tips. You

can also read about the private health in-

surance exchange of the State Bar in the

Member Benets section.

Lastly, check out the new Bike Law

Section of the State Bar in Section News!

As always, we hope you enjoy reading the

Georgia Bar Journal, and we welcome

any feedback. l

JOURNAL

GEORGIA BAR

Volume 23, Number 2October 2017

From the President—

In Praise of Local Bar

Associations

Legal Tech Tips

State Bar Bike Law

Section Rolls In

A Conversation with

Cathy Cox

Uninsured Motorist

Benets in Light of

Thurman v. State Farm

6 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

BRIAN D. “BUCK”

ROGERS

President

State Bar of Georgia

[email protected]

GBJ | From the President

In Praise of Local Bar

Associations

One of the benefits of serving as pres-

ident of the State Bar of Georgia is the

opportunity to visit communities across

the state and meet with our local bar as-

sociations. I enjoy going to Georgia cities

and towns that I have often heard about

but haven’t been to in a long time, if ever.

It’s also good to be able to report to our

members the latest news from the State

Bar and get your feedback on how the Bar

can better serve you.

Most of all, I cherish the opportunity

to witness first-hand the great work be-

ing done at the local level, through our

local bar associations, in service to the

public, the legal profession and the jus-

tice system. The State Bar of Georgia has

nearly 50,000 members. Organizationally,

we depend on local bars to serve as af-

filiates to meet the unique needs of the

attorneys and citizens of each community.

I am truly inspired by what I see and hear

about from our local bars. Here are just a

few recent examples:

The Atlanta Bar Association co-

sponsored the 11th annual Justice

Robert Benham Law Camp, held dur-

ing the summer at the Georgia State

University College of Law, for high

school students to help develop the

2017 OCTOBER 9

ships you need in order to thrive as a

small firm practitioner.”

Camaraderie and professional respect,

cultivated by these relationships, also pay

dividends. Lee wrote about his local bar

association’s recent Bench & Bar retreat,

a couple of days at a golf resort with hun-

dreds of lawyers and judges.

“During this time I had the opportu-

nity to speak with dozens of lawyers I

would have never met otherwise,” he said.

“Many of whom I have subsequently had

lunch or coffee with and now have a real

relationship. But one interaction in par-

ticular stood out.

“The week prior to the event, I had

spent most of the day in a deposition in

a long-running case. At the retreat, I ran

into a lawyer who was at the deposition

on the opposite side of the case from

us. The other lawyer and I immediately

struck up a conversation, completely

unrelated to the case. Over the course

of the evening, we had a couple drinks

together, talked about sports, our neigh-

borhoods, and all sorts of things that had

nothing to do with us being in an ad-

versarial relationship in our professional

lives. Because we were members of the

same bar, we were able to just be two

guys hanging out for a day. The value

of this cannot be discounted. Someday

the present case will end, and we will no

longer be adversaries. Perhaps I’ll refer

a case to him. Perhaps he’ll suggest me

to another lawyer for a particular type

of matter.”

Law firms that support their attorneys’

voluntary bar association membership, es-

pecially for young lawyers, get a return on

their investment as well. As Marilyn Oden-

dahl wrote for TheIndianaLawyer.com,

“In a bar association, young lawyers will

have opportunities for public speaking

and holding leadership positions. The

attorneys will then call upon the skills

gained through these experiences to build

their client base.”

Getting involved early helps young

attorneys meet the experienced lawyers

in town and begin building their net-

work of colleagues, Odendahl added.

“Then when they need help or get lost

in the courthouse, the new attorneys will

see a face they recognize and be able to

ask for assistance.”

Georgia’s local and voluntary bar as-

sociations provide an essential service

for our profession and the community at

large. I strongly encourage you to get in-

volved, not only for the benefit of others,

but for your law practice as well. As Keith

Lee concluded, “Building reputations and

extending professional courtesy is diffi-

cult if you don’t know any other lawyers

in town. And the easiest way to get to

know other lawyers is to join your local

bar association. But perhaps most im-

portantly, developing such relationships

with other lawyers can be beneficial to the

most important people: your clients.”

If you are already a leader in your local

bar, feel free to contact me if you would

like for me to attend one of your meetings

to not only give a report from the State

Bar, but also listen to your thoughts, sug-

gestions and concerns. Additionally, while

it is impossible to list all of our local bar as-

sociations’ contributions in this one article,

please keep us posted on the highlights of

your activities for future articles and letters

of recognition that I send to local newspa-

per editors on a regular basis. You can send

these items to Sarah Coole, our director of

communications, at [email protected]. l

Endnotes

1. Keith Lee, “Why You SHOULD Join a

Bar Association,” AboveTheLaw.com,

May 14, 2014.

2. Marilyn Odendahl, “Bar Associations

Work Hard to Show Young Lawyers

the Benefits of Membership,”

TheIndianaLawyer.com, Nov. 4, 2015.

3. Lee.

join

@StateBarofGA

@Georgia/YLD

@iclega

facebook.com/

statebarofgeorgia

GeorgiaYLD

iclega

flickr.com/

statebarofgeorgia

yld

youtube.com/

statebarofgeorgia

yld

@statebarofga

www.gabar.org

linkedin.com/

state-bar-of-georgia

10 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | From the YLD President

In our profession, there are some law-

yers who do pro bono work on a daily

basis, some who perform occasionally

and some not at all. Only a very small

subset, however, actively discuss volun-

teering to do pro bono work. Therefore,

a lot of misconception and misunder-

standing exists about what pro bono

work can entail and the wide variety of

opportunities for any lawyer to step in

and provide service.

Those who do discuss their pro bono

work most often are those in public inter-

est positions or who have their firm’s sup-

port for finding and handling pro bono

cases. This typically involves taking cases

or appeals in their entirety. In private

practice, many attorneys are reluctant to

talk about the pro bono work they may

be interested in or are doing. There are

attorneys who do pro bono work on their

own, finding a niche in which they can

provide assistance. A lot of their pro bono

work does not get advertised or catego-

rized as such because it is done outside of

the major public interest organizations.

Many more attorneys are reluctant to

even consider doing pro bono work, fear-

ing it will conflict, diminish or somehow

take away from their practice.

For solo and small firm attorneys,

they may not have the support or en-

couragement from their company or

firm to perform pro bono work. This is

especially true for young lawyers, who

are engaged in the process of building

their professional careers as well as re-

lationships and families. Time and en-

ergy is generally considered best spent

furthering those goals, and young law-

yers believe they do not have time to

devote to pro bono efforts. Based on the

“generally available knowledge,” many

attorneys are unaware of the pro bono

opportunities that do not involve taking

a whole case or becoming overwhelmed

with requests. This is due to the afore-

mentioned lack of discussion about the

wide variety of pro bono opportunities

in Georgia and across the nation.

Inability or unwillingness to do pro

bono work because of misconceptions

NICOLE C. LEET

Pro Bono:

Dispelling the

Misconceptions

pro bono publico (adverb & adjective): “for the public good”; denoting work

undertaken for the public good without charge, especially legal work for a client

with a low income.

YLD President

State Bar of Georgia

[email protected]

about the nature and extent of time and in-

volvement is not and should not be a part

of the legal profession’s culture. A lot of the

reluctance to discuss or engage in pro bono

work comes from excuses and outdated mis-

conceptions about what pro bono work is

and how it can be accomplished.

Everyone should agree that pro bono

work is worthwhile and of great benefit.

That is not in dispute. But the majority of

attorneys believe that pro bono consumes

too much time and generally involves taking

a full case from start to finish.

In discussing the common misconcep-

tions and excuses regarding pro bono work,

Laura Rashidi-Yazd, director of Pro Bono

Legal Services for Atlanta Legal Aid, said,

“There is no-one-size-fits all approach to

pro bono legal work any more than there is

one answer to any complex legal problem.”

Pro bono work does not have to involve

taking a case, going to trial or taking an ap-

peal. Especially with today’s advanced tech-

nology, there are many different methods

and ways to provide pro bono service.

The list of all these opportunities is far

too exhaustive to put in one article. There

are many different initiatives and programs

across Georgia that provide pro bono ser-

vice in almost every area of practice and

every conceivable means or method. The

YLD’s new Pro Bono Committee is tasked

with identifying and highlighting all of the

diverse, traditional and non-traditional op-

portunities to provide pro bono and “low

bono” service across the state. This com-

mittee is spearheading the YLD’s effort to

remove the barriers keeping young lawyers

from doing pro bono work. To receive up-

dates on pro bono activities throughout

Georgia and become more involved with

the Pro Bono Committee, join the commit-

tee online at www.georgiayld.org.

While identifying all of our pro bono ac-

tivities is too extensive to list, highlighting

the different means and methods to dispel

some of the misconceptions is not.

Misconception No. 1: You have to

go to court to do pro bono work.

Contrary to popular belief, there are many

pro bono opportunities available to law-

yers that do not involve litigation or go-

ing to court. These include assisting with

OFFICERS’ BLOCK

For this issue of the Georgia Bar Journal, we asked our Bar officers,

"Knowing what you know now, if you could send a letter to yourself as a

first-year law student, what is the most important thing it would say?"

2017 OCTOBER 11

NICOLE C. LEET | YLD President

Enjoy this time broadly examining the law, theorize and

discuss issues with your classmates and professors, and

do a “deep dive” into a minutiae of interesting areas. This

is the only time you will have the luxury to do so without

other pressures. Develop and nurture your love of the law.

RIZZA O’CONNOR | YLD President-Elect

Everything will be okay. Law school is stressful,

overwhelming and brings incredible challenges. Don’t

be discouraged when disappointment comes your way.

Being a lawyer requires persistence and resilience. Let

setbacks inspire you to improve and come back stronger.

WILLIAM T. “WILL” DAVIS | YLD Treasurer

I would tell my 1L self to stay calm and remember to

breathe. Law school and your legal career to come can and

will be stressful, but do not let that stress take control of

your life. Take care of yourself so that you can be the best

lawyer possible for your clients, friends and family.

JENNIFER C. MOCK | YLD Immediate Past President

There are many different ways of practicing law. Don’t

feel like you have to conform to a certain style to be

a successful lawyer. You can do it your own way and

enjoy a fulfilling career.

SHAMIRACLE J. RANKIN | YLD Newsletter Co-Editor

Take long deep breaths and remember that you are

equipped with everything you need to accomplish any

goal that you set. If you find yourself doubting your

abilities, mute that little voice in your head because you

can conquer any task—including law school exams!

HEATHER RIGGS | YLD Newsletter Co-Editor

Be confident in your abilities! You can accomplish

anything you set your mind to; you always have and

you always will. You’re going to enjoy a successful

career, dynamic relationships and fulfilling bar

service. There’s no limit to what you can and will

achieve, so don’t doubt yourself now.

BERT HUMMEL | YLD Secretary

No doubt that grades are important as a first year law

student since they determine rank and potential jobs,

but take time to get to know your classmates, figure out

what about the law interests you and pay attention to the

professors’ nuances. Also, good outlines are everything.

12 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

Misconception No. 2: Pro bono

work takes a lot of time.

Like any professional activity, pro bono

work requires an investment of time.

Most attorneys complain they already

have too much to do, and not enough

time to do it. But is less than one hour a

week impossible? Try this: every time you

go into the lunchroom or take a coffee

break at work, record how much time you

spend chatting with co-workers. If it is 12

minutes a day or more, you just found an

extra hour in your schedule every week

or, about 50 hours a year, the aspirational

goal set by the State Bar of Georgia and

ABA Model Rule 6.1.

You do not need to take time away

from your paying work, client develop-

ment, practice management or your fam-

ily to do pro bono work. Many of the

newer means and methods of providing

pro bono work involve the use of technol-

ogy, making it even more convenient to

fit pro bono work in those spare minutes

you have during the day. For instance,

www.georgia.freelegalanswers.org allows

an attorney to answer legal questions post-

ed online. This can be done while waiting

in line, on a commercial break from your

favorite TV show or while waiting for

your case to be called on a calendar call.

“Bite-sized” pro bono opportunities are out

there. Every question answered provides

aid to someone who needs help, and the at-

torney sets the scope of the pro bono work

by selecting which questions to answer.

Misconception No. 3: Pro bono

work costs my practice too much

in terms of time and money.

This misconception does not take into ac-

count the full picture of pro bono work.

Any activity performed takes time. Is pro

bono work a waste of time, or “costing”

you money? No. First, you can do “bite-

sized” pro bono, which does not take a

significant chunk of time in one sitting.

So there is no choice that has to be made

between doing pro bono or going to

lunch with a client for instance. Second,

while going to lunch with a client is one

way to network and market yourself and

your practice, you can do pro bono with

an eye toward networking and marketing

mortgages or other real estate contrac-

tual issues; and drafting or reviewing

transactional documents in the areas of

estate planning, tax planning, corporate

and real estate law. Many pro bono op-

portunities involve something as simple

as providing information on what forms

to fill out or file.

Pro bono work does not even neces-

sarily involve “representing” a client.

There are opportunities ranging from as-

sisting senior citizens in filling out prop-

erty tax appeal applications to reviewing

a lease to see if a rent increase is allowed

by the contract.

For every area of interest, personally

or professionally, there is an opportunity

to do pro bono work related to that inter-

est. Interested in supporting military and

veterans? Find opportunities at www.

GeorgiaAdvocates.org/GAMLAP. Want

to learn more about elder law? Volunteer

for an elder hotline or clinic, and they will

train you. Passionate about children? You

could assist with revising parent/student

handbooks for the school year.

You do not need to take time away from

your paying work, client development,

practice management or your family

to do pro bono work. Many of the newer

means and methods of providing pro

bono work involve the use of technology,

making it even more convenient to fit

pro bono work in those spare minutes

you have during the day.

2017 OCTOBER 13

as well. Many in-house counsel serve on

pro bono boards and committees. Rath-

er than a brief cocktail conversation or

lunch, how much more effective would it

be instead to invite that attorney to join

you in representing an indigent client in

a pro bono matter? Working side-by-side

with another lawyer as co-counsel is a ter-

rific way to build a bond and form a last-

ing relationship. Furthermore, pro bono

work provides opportunities to network

with a wide variety of people, expanding

marketing opportunities.

Pro bono activities with some legal

clinics, in addition to doing good, pro-

vide opportunities to pick up paying cli-

ents. Moreover, along with tremendous

self-satisfaction, there are many other

benefits that accrue from doing pro bono

work, such as gaining new skill sets and

improving your reputation in the legal

community. Focusing only on what you

give to a pro bono matter ignores what

you get from it.

Misconception No. 4: Pro bono

work only involves matters

in family law, criminal law or

landlord/tenant work, areas in

which you may not practice.

While it is true that the legal needs of

the indigent and referrals for pro bono

work typically fall in only a few legal ar-

eas that reflect basic human needs such

as housing or family law, these are not

the only areas of the law with pro bono

opportunities or needs.

Doing pro bono work in a new area

of practice may appear intimidating, but

having some representation is more fa-

vorable to the indigent client than hav-

ing no counsel at all. Basic legal knowl-

edge and research skills—and a hunger

to learn—are all the pro bono volunteer

usually needs. In addition, nearly every

pro bono referral agency provides basic

training to its volunteers, in addition to

oversight and research assistance from

highly skilled in-house lawyers who do

nothing but practice in these areas. You

do not have to be an “expert” in housing

law to defend an indigent person in an

unlawful detainer case; you just need to

be a quick study with a desire to help the

less fortunate. Additionally, this work

provides opportunities to learn new

skills, perhaps get into a courtroom or

gain more courtroom experience, and

take on a rewarding project.

As discussed earlier, there are oppor-

tunities in almost every practice area. A

lawyer can find pro bono opportunities

in his or her own practice area, from

patent work to real estate closings. Le-

gal hotlines, clinics and organizational

events provide a variety of opportunities

to add pro bono work to your practice.

Misconception No. 5: I cannot

find opportunities to do pro

bono because I do not practice

in the public interest area.

This misconception is a bit circular, as

it is based on a lack of awareness of pro

bono opportunities, due in part to the

lack of discussion regarding pro bono

work that attorneys are already provid-

ing. This is the easiest misconception to

address. The YLD Pro Bono Committee

collects and distributes opportunities

across the state. The State Bar of Geor-

gia’s Access to Justice Committee has

compiled an aggregate list of opportuni-

ties and organizations providing oppor-

tunities at www.georgiaadvocates.org/

gojc. And the YLD’s “Signature Service

Project: Pro Bono Challenge” strives to

connect those interested in doing pro

bono work with opportunities in ar-

eas across the state. Take the YLD Pro

Bono Challenge at www.georgiayld.org

to pledge to complete 50 hours of pro

bono service in the next year. Everyone

who takes the challenge and makes the

pledge will be contacted and connected

with a variety of pro bono opportunities

to assist those who might not even know

where to start.

Hopefully this has dispelled some of

the misconceptions surrounding pro bono

work. Share your experiences with your

colleagues. Find something that interests

you, and seek an opportunity to volunteer

in that area. And take the YLD Pro Bono

Challenge at www.georgiayld.org. l

CELEBRATE

PRO BONO

www.celebrateprobono.org

October

22-28, 2017

National

Pro Bono

Celebration

Tax Court Accepts

Kaye Valuation

Affirmed by

US Court of Appeals

Mitchell Kaye, CFA, ASA

(770) 998-4642

Business Valuations

Divorces ! Estates ! Gifts

ESOPs ! FLPs

Intangible Assets ! Disputes

Court Testimony and IRS Experience

serving appraisal clients since 1981

www.MitchellKaye.com

14 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | From the Executive Director

JEFF DAVIS

In August, following months of hard

work by members of our Lawyer Assis-

tance Program (LAP) Committee, the

State Bar of Georgia announced the es-

tablishment of our new Georgia Lawyers

Helping Lawyers program. This is an

additional tool for the State Bar to help

our members who are going through

rough times. This peer-to-peer program

will provide our colleagues who need as-

sistance with a fellow Bar member to be

there, listen and help.

Lawyers Helping Lawyers (LHL) is a

continuation of the Bar’s effort to assist

our members with life’s difficulties—

including but not limited to depression,

stress, alcohol or drug abuse, family prob-

lems, workplace conflicts and mental

health issues.

“Based on my experience as a member

of the ABA’s Commission on Lawyer As-

sistance Programs Advisory Committee,

I am convinced that Georgia’s new peer

program is the most confidential and

technologically advanced program in the

country and will be a model for other

states,” said LAP Committee Chair Jef-

frey R. Kuester. “A famous philosopher

once said, ‘Nothing is so difficult as not

deceiving oneself.’ Concerned peers can

provide accountability and feedback that

help us avoid self-deception. We all re-

member how meaningful it was for us to

receive important advice during our most

difficult times, so we should all give back

and be good stewards of the wisdom we

have received.”

Lynn S. Garson, the LAP Committee

member who spearheaded the effort to

create LHL, said the goal of the peer pro-

gram “is to utilize the Bar’s best resource

for helping lawyers who are struggling

with a range of issues—each other. I have

personally suffered from depression and

anxiety (voluntarily hospitalized three

times between 2000 and 2010), and there

is no doubt that my road to recovery

was founded on developing a lay commu-

nity of support.”

LHL is the first attorney peer program

of its kind in the country, simultaneously

guaranteeing anonymity while also lever-

aging the benefits of online technology.

Garson says the timeliness of this initia-

tive is underscored by a recent New York

Times article, “The Lawyer, the Addict,”

written by Eilene Zimmerman, the ex-

wife of a “high-powered Silicon Valley

attorney” who died of a drug overdose.

In her investigation, Zimmerman

discovered not only her ex-husband’s

addiction, of which she and other fam-

ily members had been unaware, but also

this: “The further I probed, the more ap-

parent it became that drug abuse among

America’s lawyers is on the rise and deep-

ly hidden.” Citing a 2016 study by the

Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation and the

American Bar Association (ABA), Zim-

merman wrote that “about 21 percent

of lawyers qualify as problem drinkers,

while 28 percent struggle with mild or

more serious depression and 19 percent

struggle with anxiety.”

Georgia Lawyers Helping

Lawyers

Executive Director

State Bar of Georgia

[email protected]

2017 OCTOBER 15

Additionally, the ABA Commission on

Lawyer Assistance Program—as part of

the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-

Being—recently released a comprehensive

report, “The Path to Lawyer Well-Being:

Practical Recommendations for Positive

Change,” aimed at addressing the prob-

lem of substance abuse and mental health

disorders among lawyers. The report fea-

tures comprehensive new recommenda-

tions focusing on five central themes:

Identifying stakeholders and the role

each can play in reducing the level of

toxicity in the legal profession.

Eliminating the stigma associated

with help-seeking behaviors.

Emphasizing that well-being is an

indispensable part of a lawyer’s duty

of competence.

Educating lawyers, judges and law

students on lawyer well-being issues.

Taking small, incremental steps to

change how law is practiced and

how lawyers are regulated to instill

greater well-being in the profession.

According to Garson, the Georgia LHL

peer program is seeking not only volun-

teers who have experienced particular

mental health or substance issues, but also

(i) those who have experience helping a

family member or friend who is strug-

gling and (ii) those whose only qualifi-

cation is that they practice law and are

familiar with the stress of our profession.

In 2009, the Board of Governors of the

State Bar approved Member Benefits,

Inc., as the Bar’s recommended

broker for members’ health, dental

and vision plans. They are also

approved to offer disability and

long term care plans, and lawyers

professional liability insurance.

The State Bar’s Private Insurance

Exchange is a multi-carrier private

exchange designed for members

and their staff and dependents.

Available to both individuals and

employer groups, the exchange

offers a wide range of health

insurance choices and more with

a consumer-friendly approach to

purchasing insurance coverage.

Individuals that do not qualify

for a government subsidy may

purchase a qualified health plan on

a private exchange. Consumers may

view plans from many insurance

carriers, compare benefits and

costs, and make purchasing

decisions based on their specific

health needs and budget.

If you are an employer, the

employer group solution is a

particular advantage because

it enables you to offer a simple

way for your employees to

shop for insurance and other

benefits by creating your own

private health exchange. With

defined contributions, you give

your employees a set amount of

money to spend on benefits and

they use that money to shop for

the coverage that meets their

individual needs. So instead of

offering a “one-size-fits-all” health

and benefits package, you empower

your employees to choose the

combination of coverage that’s just

right for them.

For more information, visit

gabar.memberbenefits.com or

call 800-282-8626.

Products and services are administered, sold

and serviced by the State Bar of Georgia’s

recommended broker, Member Benefits, Inc. The

State Bar of Georgia is not a licensed insurance

entity and does not sell insurance products.

Know Your Bar

Private Insurance

Exchange:

Health, Dental,

Vision and More

One of the most common requests received from

State Bar members is help in choosing a health

insurance plan for themselves, their families and

for their firms.

16 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

“All are welcome,” she said. “The need

is great and we would like to build the

most expansive volunteer base possible.

The Lawyer Assistance Program has

always faced the hurdle of convincing

lawyers that disclosures of personal is-

sues will not lead to discipline. Know-

ing that, the committee probably spent

as much time taking steps to ensure the

confidentiality of the participants in the

program as it did putting the entire rest

of the program together.”

To ensure such confidentiality, she

said the program is structured so that

volunteers’ names and contact informa-

tion will not be available on the website,

instead identified only by a peer number.

The committee has taken great lengths to

ensure confidentiality of participants in

the program, which will be administered

by CorpCare Associates Inc.

One single person at CorpCare, the

Bar’s outside contractor for lawyer as-

sistance program services, will have ac-

cess to the identifying information and

it will be kept in an encrypted database

by CorpCare.

“Even knowing that, when I signed

up it felt awkward to me to check off my

‘issues,’ so I imagine I won’t be the only

one,” Garson said. “I can’t emphasize

enough the firewall that has been built to

maintain confidentiality and the need for

honest disclosure. For some seeking help,

their biggest comfort will be in knowing

that they can talk to someone who has

‘been there.’ The online matching system

can’t make that match if volunteers don’t

disclose what they have experienced.”

Required training for volunteers, to

be conducted by CorpCare, consists of a

2.5-hour program. During training, vol-

unteers will learn how to distinguish be-

tween being a counselor, which they are

not, and being support for other members,

which they are; they will learn how to be

an effective peer and acquire new commu-

nication skills; and they will know what is

expected in terms of frequency of contact,

location, etc. Volunteers will also be told

what to do if there is a need for support

in excess of what the volunteer peer can

provide. If you want to be a peer but aren’t

sure what you’re signing up for, the train-

ing will answer those questions for you.

Thanks to approval by the Commis-

sion on Continuing Lawyer Compe-

tency and the Chief Justice’s Commis-

sion on Professionalism, volunteers who

complete training for the peer-to-peer

program will receive two hours of CLE

credit, including one ethics hour and one

professionalism hour.

Allan L. Galbraith, the LAP Commit-

tee member who will screen the LHL

volunteers, said, “I am also a person in

recovery and in addition to being a prac-

ticing lawyer, I also have a master’s de-

gree in counseling. One of the hopes that

I have for this program is that we can

remove some of the institutional barri-

ers to Bar members seeking help from

the LAP. My hope is that members may

utilize the services offered by the peer

program before they reach a crisis situ-

ation so that we can hopefully alleviate

some of the distress that is inherent in

untreated emotional illness. That serves

not only the member who is struggling

but also serves the public. I am hopeful

that for those lawyers whose difficulties

were more severe in nature, that we are

able to assist them in integrating back

into a productive life, including a pro-

ductive practice, by offering the friendly

assistance of someone who has an under-

standing of their situation and perhaps a

bit of wisdom based on experience.”

CorpCare President and CEO George

Martin said, “Our ongoing clinical sup-

port statewide, providing professional

assistance, undergirds the volunteers’

efforts on an as-needed basis. We be-

lieve this effort will expand our reach to

enrich the life decisions of attorneys,

which reinforces both their practice and

family lifestyles.”

Addressing questions that have already

been raised by prospective volunteers

about whether training can be sufficient

to teach volunteers how to address such

daunting issues as depression, anxiety,

addiction and the like, Garson responds,

“That is the precise point of the pro-

gram: volunteers are acting as support, a

friendly ear, a voice of encouragement—

expressly not as ‘counselors.’ The training

will teach volunteers how to recognize

when that line might be crossed, in which

case the volunteer will be instructed how

to immediately direct the struggling at-

torney to CorpCare, which can provide

counseling services. Equally, volunteer-

ing for the peer program is not a set com-

mitment; the volunteer and the member

seeking services together will determine

the extent and duration of meetings or

other modes of contact and the depth of

the commitment.”

During the launch phase of the LHL

program, volunteers are asked to sign up

online at www.GeorgiaLHL.org. Once

a group of volunteers is established, the

website will be open to those who would

like to request a peer, while continuing to

grow the volunteer database.

“Our goal is to create an extremely ro-

bust volunteer base so that those in need

have the opportunity to find the best

‘match’ possible,” Garson added. “The

beauty of the online system is that a match

might occur between lawyers who live in

different parts of the state, which greatly

expands the possibility of providing help.

It also gives the opportunity for those

living in smaller communities to find a

match outside of their immediate area,

which often will increase their comfort

level and encourage someone to seek help

who might not have otherwise done so.”

Please consider volunteering and help

us spread the word about this important

new program. We are hopeful that it will

be a huge success in Georgia and that oth-

er states will follow our lead. If you have

any questions, please contact Jeff Kuester

at [email protected] or Lynn

Garson at [email protected]. l

Endnotes

1. Zimmerman, Eilene; “The Lawyer, the

Addict”; The New York Times; July 15, 2017.

2. “Growing Concern over Well-Being

of Lawyers Leads to Comprehensive

New Recommendations”; American Bar

Association press release; Aug. 14, 2017.

The Georgia Legal Services Program (GLSP) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit law firm. Gifts to GLSP are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. The client story is used with permission. The name and photo do not necessarily represent the actual client.

“And Justice for All”

2017 State Bar Campaign for the Georgia Legal Services Program, Inc.

Please give at www.glsp.org (click on Donate Now) and help more

vulnerable clients obtain justice and opportunities out of poverty.

2017 “And Justice for All” State Bar Campaign

for the Georgia Legal Services Program

Evictions can be complicated and

detrimental to the stability of

working families.

Homeless families lose

jobs looking for another place to live. Their

children miss school for long periods that often

lead to dropping out. With few other affordable

housing options, homeless families relocate to

housing that is not better, but has more housing

problems, or they move into neighborhoods

that are not safer, but have higher crime rates.

They pay up to 80% of their incomes for rent

to live in housing that is usually indecent or

substandard, because too many landlords fail

to maintain the properties and pocket the cash,

instead, for their own beneﬁ t. GLSP’s work on

eviction cases maintains housing and keeps

families together.

The Culver family was evicted from their home

when the landlord failed a federal inspection.

The landlord responded by evicting the Culvers

and denying the return of their security deposit.

With legal assistance from the Georgia Legal

Services Program (GLSP), the Culvers had the

wrongful eviction reversed, maintained their

housing and clean credit rating, and received

treble damages against the landlord for the

failure to return the security deposit. GLSP’s

involvement was vital in keeping this family

together.

If You Don’t Stand for Justice

for All, Who Will?

Give Today at www.glsp.org (Click on Donate Now)

2017 OCTOBER 19

Uninsured

Motorist

Benets

in Light of

Thurman v.

State Farm

GBJ | The Legal

Thurman created an exception

to the derivative claim rule for

“traditional” uninsured motorist

policies which has bedeviled the

bench and the bar since it entered

Georgia law. The purpose of this

article is to explore the basis and

scope of the Thurman exception.

BY DAVID J. BLEVINS

It is widely held that Georgia uninsured

motorist (UM) law is unsettled when an in-

sured has both a traditional UM policy and

medical coverage through either Medicaid or

a plan established pursuant to the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as

Amended

(ERISA).

It has not always been

so. Prior to the Supreme Court of Georgia’s

2004 decision in Thurman v. State Farm Mu-

tual Automobile Insurance Company,

neither

Medicaid nor ERISA was thought to impact

UM coverage because Georgia follows what

might best be called the “derivative claim

rule,”

which treats multiple claims derived

from a single personal injury as a single claim

for the purposes of determining the UM limits

applicable to those claims.

Thurman created

an exception to the derivative claim rule for

“traditional”

UM policies which has bedeviled

the bench and the bar since it entered Georgia

law.

The purpose of this article is to explore

the basis and scope of the Thurman exception.

ISTOCK.COM/GIGI_MY_GIRL

20 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

cident other than the UM insured, the UM

offset is reduced by the $10,000 liability

payment; therefore, the UM insured is en-

titled to collect $35,000 instead of $25,000

from the UM carrier.

In Thurman, the Court disregarded the

distinction between liability insurance

payments made for claims arising from

other people injured in the same collision

and liability payments arising from the UM

insured’s own injuries. The beneficiary of

the Court’s ruling was Gail Thurman, an

employee of the U.S. Postal Service who

was involved in an automobile collision in

which the other party was at fault. At the

time of the collision, Ms. Thurman was in

the course and scope of her employment.

Her medical expenses were primarily paid

by a combination of her federal work-

ers’ compensation coverage pursuant to

the Federal Employee Compensation Act

(FECA)

and her major medical insurance

pursuant to the Federal Employee Health

Benefits Act (FEHBA).

The federal gov-

ernment became a third-party claimant

when pursuant to FECA and FEHBA, the

federal government successfully asserted a

subrogation claim against the tortfeasor’s

liability carrier for benefits it paid to Ms.

Thurman’s medical providers due to inju-

ries she sustained in the collision.

Before the payment to the federal gov-

ernment, the UM offset shielded the UM

carrier from exposure because the liability

limits exceeded Ms. Thurman’s UM limits.

However, after the payment of the federal

claims, the funds left in the liability policy

were less than Ms. Thurman’s UM limits.

She sued the UM carrier for the difference

between her UM limit and the remaining

proceeds of the liability policy.

The UM

carrier contended that it had no exposure

because the federal claims were derived

from Ms. Thurman’s injuries; therefore,

it was entitled to offset the liability policy

without taking into account the liability

carrier’s payment of FECA and FEHBA

claims.

Ms. Thurman, on the other hand,

advanced a novel theory. She contended

that the UM statute provided an excep-

tion to the derivative claim rule because

the federal government’s Supremacy-

Clause-enabled subrogation claims contra-

vened Georgia public policy by depleting

a portion of the liability coverage before

Before one can appreciate the Thur-

man exception, one must have a working

knowledge of traditional UM coverage

limits.

UM coverage is insurance to cover

the risk of a tortfeasor not carrying liabil-

ity insurance.

As originally conceived,

UM coverage makes up the difference

between the tortfeasor’s liability limit and

the tort victim’s UM limit;

therefore, to

determine the UM carrier’s exposure, the

liability limits are subtracted from the UM

limits. In the parlance of the insurance

industry, the UM carrier receives an “off-

set” for the tortfeasor’s liability coverage.

For example, if the tortfeasor has $25,000

in liability coverage, the tort victim has

$55,000 in damages but only $50,000 in

UM coverage, the tort victim may only

collect $25,000 from the UM carrier

($50,000 minus $25,000 for the liability

limits offset) despite the fact that $5,000

in damages goes unfunded.

From time to time, third parties seek

to recover the same liability coverage as

the tort victim/UM insured. Based on the

“other claims” language of O.C.G.A. § 33-7-

11(b)(1)(D)(ii)(II),

the UM carrier’s offset

is reduced (UM carrier’s exposure increased)

by depletion of the liability coverage due to

payment of non-derivative claims such as

payments to other people who were also

injured in the same accident.

In the above

example, if the liability carrier pays $10,000

from its limits to someone injured in the ac-

Before one can appreciate the Thurman

exception, one must have a working

knowledge of traditional UM coverage

limits. UM coverage is insurance

to cover the risk of a tortfeasor not

carrying liability insurance.

2017 OCTOBER 21

she was completely compensated for her

damages.

In doing so, Ms. Thurman at-

tempted to pit Georgia public policy that

one injury is entitled to only one oppor-

tunity to collect applicable UM coverage

(derivative claim rule) against Georgia

public policy that a tort victim must be

completely compensated before his or

her health insurance carrier may bring a

subrogation claim against a responsible

third party’s liability coverage (complete

compensation rule).

The trial court and the Court of Ap-

peals rejected Ms. Thurman’s novel ap-

proach.

However, the Supreme Court

proved more receptive. Noting “Georgia’s

public policy strongly supportive of the

complete compensation rule,”

the Court

unanimously reversed the Court of Ap-

peals. However, the Court’s analysis was

complicated by the fact the Court had to

find room in O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11 to ac-

commodate its public policy conclusions.

O.C.G.A. section 33-7-11 is the statu-

tory framework around which Georgia

Uninsured Motorist law is built. It pro-

vides that traditional UM policies are

offset by “available” liability coverage.

“[A]vailable coverages” is defined as:

the limits of coverage [of the tort-

feasor’s liability insurance] less any

amounts by which the maximum

amounts payable under such limits of

coverage have, by reason of payment of

other claims or otherwise, been reduced

below the limits of coverage.

The Court of Appeals focused on the

phrase “other claims” and concluded that

claims by Ms. Thurman’s federal health

insurance were derivative of her injury

and therefore were not “other claims.”

Justice Benham writing for the Su-

preme Court did not quibble with the

Court of Appeals’ analysis of “other

claims.” Instead, the Supreme Court

found that the liability limits for the pur-

pose of calculating UM exposure could

be reduced not only by “other claims” but

also pursuant to the nebulous phrase “or

otherwise.”

The Court did not attempt

to define “otherwise” but noted that “the

legislature has provided a means [for the

Court to follow the complete compensa-

tion rule] by its use of the phrase ‘reduced

by . . . . otherwise.’”

The significance of

the “or otherwise” language is not in what

it says but in what it allowed the Court

to say. The Court focused on the public

policy considerations underlining the

complete compensation rule and relegated

the statutory analysis to a preliminary ex-

ercise. In other words, O.C.G.A. section

33-7-11 is the starting point as opposed

to the ending point of the analysis. Fail-

ure to appreciate this distinction is the

primary source of confusion surrounding

Thurman. Looking to the statute as the end

point of the analysis, subsequent courts

sifted through the statute and the Thurman

opinion in vain for a definition of “other-

wise” that they could apply to a given lien

to determine if the lien came within the

Thurman exception.

Alas, it could not be

found because it was not there.

Thurman harbors a second layer of con-

fusion because the Court followed its broad

policy analysis with an exceedingly narrow

holding which appeared to limit the case to

a small number of federal employees.

Accordingly, we conclude that when a

federal employee is required by FECA

or FEHBA to reimburse the provider

of benefits and the federal employee has

not been fully compensated for injuries

sustained, the amount reimbursed to the

benefits providers constitutes a reduc-

tion in the “limits of coverage [of the

tortfeasor’s liability insurance] . . . by

reason of . . . or otherwise.”

The holding, understandably, led many

students of the law to conclude that what-

ever the Court’s reasoning, the opinion

was in effect limited to its facts. Because

facts that fit the holding constitute a de

minimis number of claims, it was thought

the case would become an odd and ob-

scure curiosity of the law.

It was not to be. The federal govern-

ment has virtually identical rights of sub-

rogation for Medicare benefits as it does

for benefits extended to federal employ-

ees.

Unlike FECA and FEHBA benefi-

ciaries who are numerically insignificant

in Georgia, Medicare beneficiaries are

ubiquitous. In short order, the Medicare

issue came before the Court of Appeals.

Despite the UM carrier’s plea that Thur-

man should be limited to its holding, in

Toomer v. Allstate Insurance Company the

Court of Appeals rightly concluded:

We find no meaningful distinction

between Toomer’s situation and that

of Gail Thurman. Allstate argues that

Thurman is distinguishable because

in that case, the injured party was a

federal employee whose reimburse-

ment obligations arose under FECA

and FEHBA, whereas here, the injured

party is not a federal employee and her

reimbursement obligations arise under

Medicare law. Allstate offers no reason

why these factual variances matter, and

we discern none.

The Toomer Court’s disregard of Thur-

man’s holding in favor of its rationale

called into question the application of the

derivative claim rule when any lien at-

tached to the liability policy. Uncharted

waters lay ahead for calculation of tradi-

tional UM coverage in the face of hospital

liens, ERISA liens and Medicaid liens, to

name a few.

Less than a year after Toomer, in Adams

v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co.,

in a four to

three decision, the Court of Appeals found

that hospital liens should be treated like

Medicare liens for the purpose of calculat-

ing UM coverage. It appeared the Thurman

exception had swallowed the derivative

claim rule. The Court of Appeals spent the

bulk of its Adams opinion analyzing the

text of the Uninsured Motorist statute,

but in the end did not base its decision on

the statute but on the similarity of federal

and state liens. The Court stated:

the only distinction between the liens

in Thurman and Toomer is that in those

cases the liens were imposed under

federal law, but in this case the hospi-

tal lien was imposed under O.C.G.A.

§ 44–14–470(b). As we find that this is

a distinction without a real difference.

The Supreme Court of Georgia resus-

citated the derivative claim rule by revers-

ing the Court of Appeals by a vote of five

to two.

The Supreme Court likewise

looked to the hospital lien, but saw it with

22 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

different policy eyes. The Supreme Court

opinion written by Justice Melton turned

on the benefit to Randolph Adams by the

payment of the medical bill which was the

basis of the hospital lien.

When a tortfeasor’s liability carrier

pays a hospital lien . . . it does so for



insured. The [UM] insured, then, re-

ceives all of the benefits from the pay-

ment, as his personal responsibilities

for the hospital bill are satisfied.

By stating “personal responsibility,” the

Court cannot simply mean personal liabil-

ity. Gail Thurman and Jamie Toomer were

personally liable to the federal government

for the satisfaction of the federal liens

Randolph Adams was personally liable to

the hospital for the hospital bill. The dis-

tinction that the Court made by “personal

responsibility” is that Randolph Adams’ li-

ability for the hospital bill was not contin-

gent on his recovery from the tortfeasor,

whereas Ms. Thurman’s and Ms. Toomer’s

liability to the federal government was so

conditioned.

What the Supreme Court’s

opinion does not tell us is why that distinc-

tion should make a difference.

The reason for the difference rests on

the policy foundations of the complete

compensation rule. The primary purpose

of the rule is not to compensate just any in-

jured person, but to give an injured person

who has purchased insurance the benefit of

his bargain (i.e., shift the risk of loss to an

insurer in exchange for a premium).

Where either the insurer or the in-

sured must to some extent go unpaid,

the loss should be borne by the insurer

for that is a risk the insured has paid it

to assume.

In the form of either labor or pay-

roll deduction, Gail Thurman and Jamie

Toomer paid their lien holder, the federal

government, to assume the risk of medi-

cal expenses.

Randolph Adams did not

pay his lien holder, the hospital, to assume

a risk for him. To the contrary, his agree-

ment was to assume the debt, not shift the

risk of incurring it. Absent the U.S. Con-

stitution’s Supremacy Clause

allowing

federal statutes to pre-empt Georgia law,

the complete compensation rule would

have held the federal claims at bay until

Ms. Thurman and Ms. Toomer had been

completely compensated for their dam-

ages.

Not so in Mr. Adams’ case.

Using the complete compensation rule

as a guide, evaluation of derivative claims

for the Thurman exception is not difficult.

As we learn from Toomer, hospital liens

paid out of the tortfeasor’s liability policy

clearly do not reduce the UM offset (in-

crease the UM exposure). The same is true

for Medicaid liens though the conclusion

is less obvious. Unlike Medicare beneficia-

ries, Medicaid recipients do not pay a pre-

mium for their benefits.

Medicaid is not

a form of insurance.

On the other hand,

benefits afforded under ERISA are in ex-

change for either labor or payroll deduc-

tion, therefore, do implicate the complete

compensation rule if the plan documents

contain a mandatory reimbursement pro-

vision.

ERISA liens paid from the liabil-

ity policy should fall within the Thurman

exception, i.e., reduce the UM offset (in-

crease the UM carrier’s exposure).

The views expressed here are at odds

with the view expressed by two of Geor-

gia’s foremost authorities in the field,

Frank E. Jenkins III and Wallace Miller

III in their excellent treatise, GeorGia au-

tomobile insurance law, includinG tort

law with Forms (West 2016). In section

32:3 of this standard work entitled “Un-

derinsured Motor Vehicles and Thurman

v. State Farm,” the authors argue that Thur-

man and its prodigy seem to establish “a

simple, two-pronged litmus test for a lien

to qualify under Thurman.” The authors

articulate the test as follows:

In the absence of (1) the payment of

medical benefits and (2) a resulting

subrogation lien enforceable by the

subrogee against the liable third party,

it would seem that any Thurman-

based claim for uninsured motorist

insurance benefits should tumble like

a house of cards.

On the basis of prong two of their test,

the authors maintain that ERISA liens do

not have Thurman implications because

an ERISA plan’s claims are not true sub-

rogation claims against the tortfeasor or

the tortfeasor’s carrier, but rather a right

of reimbursement which may only be

brought against the ERISA beneficiary

who is also the tort victim/UM insured.

However, the Georgia law of complete

compensation as set out in O.C.G.A. sec-

tion 33-24-56.1 specifically applies to

reimbursement claims. In subsection (b),

the statute states:

In the event of recovery for personal

injury from a third party by . . . a per-

son for whom any benefit provider

has paid medical expenses or disability

benefits, the benefit provider for the

person injured may require reimburse-

ment from the injured party of benefits

it has paid on account of the injury,

up to the amount allocated to those

categories of damages in the settle-

ment documents or judgment, if: (1)

[the injured person is first completely

compensated].

The statute defines “benefit provider”

to include:

any insurer, health maintenance orga-

nization, health benefit plan, preferred

provider organization, 

plan, or other entity which provides

for payment or reimbursement of

health care expenses, health care ser-

vices, disability payments, lost wage

payments, or any other benefits under

a policy of insurance or contract with

an individual or group.

Clearly, ERISA liens infringe on Geor-

gia’s public policy of complete compen-

sation every bit as much as federal liens

pursuant to FECA or FEHBA.

FECA and FEHBA liens, ERISA liens

thwart Georgia public policy via the

supremacy clause.

Also based on their test, Jenkins and

Miller contend that a Medicaid lien

should constitute a Thurman excep-

tion despite Holland v. State Farm which

holds that the complete compensation

rule has “no application” to Medicaid

liens because it only applies to insurance

contracts.

The Jenkins and Miller test

attempts to address all the facts of Thur-

2017 OCTOBER 23

man and its progeny; however, in the fi-

nal analysis it fails because the test does

not adequately account for the complete

compensation rule. The complete com-

pensation rule is the legal principle on

which Thurman turns.

Despite all the confusion that has sur-

rounded the Thurman exception, Thur-

man, Toomer and Adams are consistent

with each other. Seen through the lens of

the complete compensation rule, the cases

are reliable guides for courts and litigants

navigating the tricky waters of UM cov-

erage in the face of derivative claims.

That does not mean that Thurman

was rightly decided. The text of O.C.G.A.

section 33-7-11(b)(1)(D)(ii)(II) gives the

Court scant foundation for the Thurman

exception. Beyond the statute, the Court

had a dubious policy basis for applying the

complete compensation rule in such a way

as to burden UM carriers with a risk nei-

ther insurer nor insured contemplated.

If the appellate courts of this state see fit

to revisit the viability of the Thurman ex-

ception, the question should not turn on

the supposed chaos Thurman has injected

into the law. It should turn on the mean-

ing of the statute and the wisdom of un-

dertaking the laudable goal of reforming

federal subrogation law with an obscure

and nebulous corner of the Georgia insur-

ance code. In the final analysis, if Thurman

is infirm, the fault lies in its root, not in

its branches. l

David J. Blevins is a 1985

graduate of the University of

Georgia School of Law.

Except for a stint of

approximately three years as

a superior court judge, David Blevins

has practiced law in Dalton, Ga., since

graduation. A significant part of his

practice includes plaintiff’s personal

injury and automobile insurance

matters. He has previously published a

related article, The Made Whole docTrine

FroM The GeorGia PersPecTive, Ga. Bar

Journal, 31 Ga. Bar J. 149 (1995). As a

superior court judge, he issued an

order which addressed the impact of

an ERISA lien on UM coverage. Reece v.

Daniel, 2014 WL 4159933 (Ga. Super.)

Aug. 22, 2014.

Endnotes

1. 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq.

Frank e. Jenkins, iii and wallace

iller, iii, Ga. automobile

nsurance law § 32:3 (2016-2017

ed.). “Underinsured Motor Vehicles

and Thurman v. State Farm” (The law

is “adumbrative”) (hereinafter

Jenkins

and miller); Bradley S. Wolff, et.

al., Insurance, 61 Mercer L. Rev. 179,

182–84 (2009); Stephen M. Schatz, et.

al., Insurance, 63 Mercer L. Rev. 165,

182–85 (2011).

3. 278 Ga. 162, 598 S.E.2d 448 (2004).

4. The phrase is the author’s.

5. See Erturk v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.,

315 Ga. App. 274, 277, 726 S.E.2d 757,

758-759 (2012) (when a tort victim is

killed, the personal representative may

bring a claim for funeral expenses and,

at the same time, the surviving spouse

may bring a separate claim for wrongful

death; however, “because the damage to

both the Estate and the Widow ‘arises

out of a personal injury to only one

person,’” the claims are taken in the

aggregate to determine the applicable

liability and UM limits). Mullinax v.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 303 Ga.

App. 76, 78, 692 S.E.2d 734, 736 (2010)

(a separate consortium claim arises

in one spouse by virtue of a personal

injury to the other; however, because

both claims are derived from a single

personal injury, they are treated as one

claim for the purposes of calculating UM

coverage); Thurman v. State Farm, 260

Ga. App. 338, 339, 579 S.E.2d 746, 747

(2003), rev’d 278 Ga. 162, 598 S.E.2d

448 (2004); Young v. Maryland Cas. Co.,

228 Ga. App. 388, 389-90, 491 S.E.2d

839, 840-41 (1997) (claims against the

at-fault driver and father of driver via

Family Purpose Doctrine are treated

as one claim for UM purposes if they

arise from one injury); Knight v. Ga.

Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 184 Ga. App. 312,

313-314, 361 S.E.2d 190, 191-192 (1987)

(summary judgment for UM carrier

not appropriate until determination

of other claims, which seems to mean

other claimants; however, the opinion

is not clear. See treatment in Young,

228 Ga. App. at 390, 491 S.E.2d at 841

and Thurman, 260 Ga. App. at 339, 579

S.E.2d at 747).

6. O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11(b)(1)(D)(ii)(II),

also known as “reduced” or “limits to

limits” coverage. Since January 1, 2009,

in addition to traditional UM coverage,

Get

Published

Earn CLE

Credit

The Editorial Board of

the Georgia Bar Journal

is in regular need of

scholarly legal articles

to print in the Journal.

Earn CLE credit, see your

name in print and help

the legal community by

submitting an article

today!

Submit articles to

Sarah I. Coole

Director of Communications

[email protected] | 404-527-8791

104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 100

Atlanta, GA 30303

JOURNAL

GEORGIA BAR

24 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

Georgia law has provided for “added on”

coverage (also known as “excess UM

coverage”) in which the UM carrier does

not get credit for the liability coverage.

Instead, the UM coverage is added on

or stacked on the liability coverage.

O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11(b)(1)(D)(ii)(I).

Thurman and its progeny have no impact

on added-on policies.

7. See articles collected at endnote 2, supra.

8. There is no distinction in the legal status of

a claim under a UM policy if the tortfeasor

has no liability coverage, sometimes

called a true uninsured motorist,

or if the tortfeasor has insufficient

liability coverage, sometimes called an

underinsured motorist. Both are defined as

an “uninsured motorist.” O.C.G.A. § 33-7-

11(b)(1)(D)(ii)(II). Of course, the amount

of liability coverage is a factual distinction

that may have legal consequences.

9. Donovan v. State Farm Ins. Co., 329 Ga.

App. 609, 765 S.E.2d 755 (2015),

Jenkins

and miller § 29:1.

10. Allstate Fire and Cas. Co. v. Rotham,

332. Ga. App. 670, 671, 774 S.E.2d 735,

736-37 (2015).

11. See generally

Jenkins and miller § 39.5(b).

12. The statute states in relevant part, “[The

tortfeasor’s] motor vehicle [is] uninsured

only for the amount of the difference

between the available coverages under

the bodily injury liability insurance and

property damage liability insurance

coverages on such motor vehicle and

the limits of the uninsured motorist

coverages provided under the insured’s

motor vehicle insurance policies;

and, for purposes of this subdivision,

available coverages under the bodily

injury liability insurance and property

damage liability insurance coverages on

such motor vehicle shall be the limits

of coverage less any amounts by which

the maximum amounts payable under

such limits of coverage have, by reason

of payment of other claims or otherwise,

been reduced below the limits of

coverage.” (emphasis added).

13. Erturk v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 315 Ga.

App. 274, 276, 726 S.E.2d 757, 759-60

(2012).

14. Thurman, 278 Ga. at 162, 598 S.E.2d at

449.

15. 5 U.S.C. § 8101-8152

16. 5 U.S.C. § 8901-8914.

17. Thurman, 278 Ga. at 164, 598 S.E.2d at

450.

18. In Thurman, the liability policy was

a $100,000 single limit policy, which

means that all claims arising from a

collision, including property damage,

are taken from the $100,000 limit as

opposed to a “split limit” policy that

provides separate amounts for property

damage and bodily injury. Thirty-

four thousand, six hundred sixty-six

dollars and 32/100 ($34,666.32) of the

liability coverage was paid to the federal

government pursuant to either the

FECA or the FEHBA, and $4,445.81 of

the liability coverage was paid to the

United States Post Office for damage

to the mail truck, leaving a balance of

liability coverage of $60,887.87. Ms.

Thurman had an aggregate of $75,000

traditional uninsured motorist coverage

(three $25,000 policies). Ms. Thurman

brought suit for the difference of

$14,112.13. Id. 278 Ga. at 162-63, 598

S.E.2d at 449-450.

19. Id.

20. Thurman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 2003 WL 23784045 (Plaintiff’s Brief

on Certiorari).

21. It is tempting to state the rule as one

injury for one policy; however, under

Georgia’s rather complicated “stacking”

rules, the applicable UM coverage may

be comprised of several policies. See

generally,

Jenkins and miller § 39:6.

22. Thurman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 260 Ga. App. 338, 579 S.E.2d 746

(2003).

23. Thurman, 278 Ga. at 163-64, 598 S.E.2d

at 450.

24. O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11(b)(1)(D)(ii)(II) (as

quoted and emphasized by the Supreme

Court); Thurman, 278 Ga. at 163, 598

S.E.2d. at 450.

25. Thurman, 260 Ga. App. at 339, 579

S.E.2d at 747.

26. Thurman, 278 Ga. at 164, 598 S.E. 2d at

450.

27. Id. 278 Ga. at 164, 598 S.E. 2d at 451.

28. Adams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 298 Ga. App. 249, 250-51, 679

S.E.2d 726, 727-28 (2003). The bulk of

the opinion is devoted to the definition

of “otherwise.” At the end of its analysis,

however, the Court did not say what

the term means in the context of the

statute except that it means something

more than “other claims,” which is true

but not very helpful if one is looking to

“otherwise” for guidance in determining

if a particular type of lien comes within

the Thurman exception.

29. Thurman, 278 Ga. at 164, 598 S.E.2d at

451.

30. Bradley S. Wolff, et. al., Insurance, 61

Mercer L. Rev. 179, 182–84 (2009)

(“[The Thurman] decision was unusual

but seemingly limited to a fairly rare set

of facts.”).

31. 42 U.S.C. § 1392.

32. 292 Ga. App. 60, 63, 663 S.E.2d 763,

765-66 (2008).

33. 298 Ga. App. 249, 679 S.E.2d 726 (2009).

34. Because UM coverage is a creature

of statute, the Court’s effort is an

understandable but, in light of Thurman,

futile exercise. See also discussion in

endnote 29, supra.

35. 298 Ga. App. at 253, 679 S.E.2d at 729.

36. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Adams, 288

Ga. 315, 702 S.E.2d 898 (2010).

37. 288 Ga. at 319, 702 S.E.2d at 902

(emphasis in the original).

38. Right of recovery from beneficiary for

Medicare benefits: 42 U.S.C. § 1395(b)

(2)(B)(ii); Taransky v. Secretary of U.S.

Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 760

F.3d 307, 309 (3d Cir. 2014); right of

recovery from beneficiary for federal

workers’ compensation benefits: 5

U.S.C. § 8132; Ward by and Through

Ward v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 726 F.2d

516 (9th Cir. 1984); right of recovery

from beneficiary of federal health

insurance (FEHBA): 5 U.S.C. § 8902(m)

(1); Bell v. BC/BS of Oklahoma, 827

F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 2016) (FEHBA right

of reimbursement is not mandated by

federal statute but if the plan document

provides for subrogation and/or

reimbursement the statute preempts

state law from enforcing the complete

compensation rule against the plan).

39. To illustrate, if instead of being tort

victims, Mr. Adams, Ms. Thurman

and Ms. Toomer had been the at-fault

drivers in their respective accidents, no

third party (i.e., tortfeasor) would have

been liable for their medical expenses.

Nonetheless, Mr. Adams would have still

owed the hospital, whereas Ms. Thurman

and Ms. Toomer would not have owed

anything to their health insurance carrier

(i.e., the federal government).

40. Davis v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan

of Georgia, Inc., 271 Ga. 508, 511,

521 S.E.2d 815, 818 (1999) (citations

omitted). Compare Woodcraft by

MacDonald v. Ga. Surety and Cas. Co.,

293 Ga. 9, 743 S.E.2d 373 (2013) (the

Court declined to follow the Complete

Compensation Rule in a property

damage case despite the fact that the

insurance contract did not expressly

2017 OCTOBER 25

abrogate the rule), with Duncan v.

Integon, 267 Ga. 646, 482 S.E.2d 325

(1997) (at odds with Woodcraft, the

Court’s property damage / personal

injury distinction notwithstanding).

41. Federal workers’ compensation is

obviously in exchange for labor. Medicare

benefits are in exchange for a premium.

“Essentially, Medicare is a government-

owned and operated insurance program.”

Christopher C. Yearout, Big Brother Is

Not Just Watching, He’s Suing: Medicare’s

Secondary Payer Statute Evolves in Aggressive

Pursuit of Fiscal Integrity, 41

cumb. l. rev.

117, 119 (2011).

42. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

43. Thurman, 278 Ga. at 164, 598 S.E. 2d at

451; Toomer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 292 Ga.

App. 60, 62, 663 S.E.2d 763, 765-66 (2008).

44. “Medicare is an insurance program.

Medical bills are paid from trust funds

which those covered have paid into.”

“Medicaid is an assistance program. It

serves low-income people of every age.

Patients usually pay no part of costs

for covered medical expenses. A small

co-payment is sometimes required.” U.S

Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., https://

www.hhs.gov/answers/medicare-

and-medicaid/what-is-the-difference-

between-medicare-medicaid/index.html

(last visited September 1, 2017).

45. Holland v. State Farm, 236 Ga. App. 832,

835, 513 S.E.2d 48, 50 (1999).

46. ERISA does not mandate an “ERISA

lien.” ERISA preempts state law insofar

as state law curtails the plan’s rights to

recover as set out in the plan documents.

Cagle v. Bruner, 112 F.3d 1510, 1521-

1522 (11th Cir. 1997). If the plan

documents so provide, the plan’s right

to recover is not diminished by the

complete compensation rule (also called

the made whole doctrine). Sereboff v.

Mid Atlantic Med. Servs., Inc., 547 U.S.

356 (2006). It is an exceedingly rare plan

that has not afforded itself the widest

latitude to recover.

47.

Jenkins and miller, § 32:3(h).

48. Id. The distinction between an ERISA

plan’s right of reimbursement and

right of subrogation is unfortunately

lost on many courts. A classic right

of subrogation would permit an

ERISA plan to stand in the shoes of

its beneficiary to bring a suit against a

tortfeasor or a tortfeasor’s insurance

carrier to recover healthcare expenses

or other benefits paid by the plan on

account of the tortfeasor’s conduct. On

the other hand, a right of reimbursement

is the ERISA plan’s right to pursue

its beneficiary to recover funds the

beneficiary has received from a

tortfeasor or a tortfeasor’s insurance

carrier. Although the two legal

vehicles have the same object, they are

prosecuted in very different ways. For

discussion of an ERISA plan’s right (or

lack thereof) to bring an action against

a liability carrier, see generally cases

collected at

when is insurer Fiduciary

nder § 3(21)(A)(i) or (iii) of ERISA

(29 U.S.C.A. § 1002(21)(A)(i) or (iii))?

181 A.L.R. Fed. 269 § 38. “Monies

held by tortfeasor’s insurer subject to

subrogation agreement” (originally

published in 2002). See also HCA v.

Clemmons, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1374, 1380-

81 (M.D. Ga. 2001).

49. O.C.G.A. § 33-24-56.1(b)(1) (emphasis

added).

50. O.C.G.A. § 33-24-56.1(a)(1) (emphasis

added).

51. The Thurman court cited O.C.G.A.

§ 33-24-56.1(b) for the proposition that

“Georgia is strongly supportive of the

complete compensation rule.” Thurman,

278 Ga. at 163-164, 598 S.E. 2d at 450.

52. FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52

(1990), and its progeny.

53. 236 Ga. App. 832, 835, 513 S.E.2d 48, 50

(1999). See also Padgett v. Toal, 261 Ga.

App. 154, 155, 581 S.E.2d 744, 746-47

(2003).

54. The UM carrier is not immune from the

complete compensation rule for risks

contemplated by the policy (i.e., that

the tortfeasor does not have coverage

adequate to satisfy the tort victim’s

damages up to the UM limit). To the

contrary, its right of subrogation against

the tortfeasor is not ripe until its insured

has been fully compensated. Mullenberg

v. K.J. Saxon Constr. Co., 192 Ga. App.

281, 282, 384 S.E.2d 418, 419 (1989);

Cherokee Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 187 Ga.

App. 628, 630, 371 S.E.2d 103, 105

(1988), rev’d on other grounds, 258 Ga.

839, 375 S.E.2d 850 (1989).

The State Bar of Georgia and the Chief Justice’s Commission on

Professionalism invite nominations for the 19th annual Justice Robert

Benham Awards for Community Service. Judges and lawyers meet the

criteria for these awards if they have combined a professional career

with outstanding service and dedication to their communities through

voluntary participation in community organizations, government-

sponsored activities or humanitarian work outside of their professional

practice and should not be in a judicial or political race for 2017 and 2018.

The deadline for nominations is Friday, Nov. 17.

For more information and the nomination criteria,

visit www.gabar.org.

Justice Robert Benham Awards

for Community Service

call for

nominations

BenhamAwardsAd_18.indd 1 9/22/2017 9:34:19 AM

GBJ | Feature

26 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

Earlier this summer, I had the oppor-

tunity to visit my undergraduate alma

mater. As I stepped out of the cab at the

front gates of 37 and O Streets in Wash-

ington, D.C., it all came rushing back.

Walking through campus, I watched the

intensely colored floral bloom variations

zigzag across the campus lawn adding

multiple patches of color to the setting.

It made me remember when I was a bud-

ding young adult headed to this place that

A Tapestry of Mentoring

“We don’t accomplish anything in this world alone . . . and whatever

happens is the result of the whole tapestry of one’s life and all the

weavings of individual threads form one to another that creates

something.”—Sandra Day O’Connor

BY MICHELLE E. WEST

GETTYIMAGES.COM/ILBUSCA

2017 OCTOBER 27

I called home for four years. I recall con-

cluding my final year in high school with

a pre-college counselor encouraging me

to sign a contract confirming my college

application preparation and submission

schedule. It was my dear calculus teacher

who helped me uphold this agreement’s

impending deadlines. Daily, she sat with

me after school in front of the computer

and guided my direction in completing

what seemed to be a daunting task. These

wonderful individuals are just two of the

many supporters who lent a steady hand,

provided words of encouragement and

helped me chart a path toward the col-

lege I found myself returning to almost 20

years to the day after I walked across the

stage situated on the front lawn.

As I walked through campus, I en-

countered graduation day for various

degree programs. I became nostalgic as I

made my way down the floral clustered

pathway. I was welcomed by the build-

ings of yesteryear as I admired the recent,

more modern structures of today. The

older buildings juxtaposed against the

new exemplified how things had changed

yet also remained the same. Complement-

ing one another; the wisdom of the old

celebrated the new as the new uplifted

the old. Upon entering the Intercultural

Center where I spent most of my under-

graduate years, I searched for the name of

the international politics professor who

shaped my formative college years. I was

sad to find that it was not there. I subse-

quently learned that he passed some years

earlier, but fortunately for me, not before

impacting my life. I also looked for the

name of the dean with whom I pleaded to

allow me to veer off course for a semester

There is tremendous value in both formal and informal

mentoring. It is the sum of both, intricately woven throughout

our lives, that leads to enduring growth and development.

of study abroad in Italy. She encouraged

my skills of persuasion and supported my

need to follow my heart.

As I made my way through campus

in search of my old dorm, I passed the

Healy and New North buildings, where

years ago, I met the English professor

who influenced my writing style and en-

couraged my love for the written word. I

also recalled the theology professor who

broadened my thoughts on religion and

life. Heading into the tunnel, I was shaded

from the sun but not before being greeted

by another patch of glorious blooms. The

contrasting color brought forth vivid

memories of how my life had been illu-

minated by my various experiences here.

As I was preparing to journey out of

the gates, I passed one last commence-

ment exercise. It was that of the school

from which I had graduated, the School

of Foreign Service. I paused and reflected

on how not only the professors, but also

my peers and family had shaped my life

and assisted me through those four fabu-

lous foundational years. Each encounter

stitched lasting threads weaving through

and supporting the fabric of my life.

As the beautiful floras of summer pass

the torch to the aching red and orange

leaves of fall, I recall not just these experi-

ences, but the many that came after, in law

school and currently in my professional

career, which have served to impact the

life I have today. It has not been just one

mentoring relationship, but the sum of

many, in all shapes and sizes, that has cre-

ated this beautiful patchwork. Whether

it was a connection at the office, strategy

surrounding a case, a shared interest, ca-

maraderie at a salon, a conversation on

a flight, a short call, a planned lunch or

dinner meeting, a walk in the park or a

chance encounter at an event or seminar,

I have learned from these experiences. Al-

though this wisdom was not transferred

in a formalized fashion, a connection was

established and an imprint was made on

my life.

There are so many valuable connec-

tions to be made, if encounters are ap-

proached as more than mere transactions.

Mentoring can be found at all stages of

life and in numerous forms. The Tran-

sition Into Law Practice Program was in

the early stages of development when I

graduated from law school. Therefore, I

was not afforded the wonderful opportu-

nity to participate in Georgia’s formalized

mentoring and continuing legal educa-

tion program. The advice, guidance and

support I received resulted from seren-

dipitous encounters and intentional en-

gagements interspersed throughout my

life. Nevertheless, my existence has been

thoroughly enriched. These experiences

have served to aid my professional and

personal journey in much the same man-

ner as a formalized mentoring program.

There is tremendous value in both for-

mal and informal mentoring. It is the sum

of both, intricately woven throughout

our lives, that leads to enduring growth

and development. l

Michelle E. West

Director, Transition Into Law

Practice Program

State Bar of Georgia

[email protected]

GBJ | Feature

28 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

At its annual grants meeting in July,

the Georgia Bar Foundation completed

its evaluations of 11 proposals received

for how best to use Bank of America

settlement funds. The foundation had

received about $13 million from round

two of the settlement.

After discussions that overlapped two

meetings, the Board of Trustees decided to

award $8,025,967 to five proposals whose

primary purpose was foreclosure legal as-

sistance or community redevelopment legal

assistance in accordance with the purpose

of the funds. This leaves approximately $5

million to be disbursed, pending evaluation

of the effectiveness of these accepted pro-

posals, most of which last two years.

Ash Tree Organization in Savannah

received $250,000 to fund a Financial

Literacy Academy to teach students and

their families about banking and finance

to help them better cope with possible

future economic problems such as fore-

closure. Ash Tree is well known in Savan-

nah for finding creative ways to educate

children and keep them in school. The

proposal of the organization, which is led

by Morris Brown, combines its reach into

communities with the use of volunteer

executives from Wells Fargo, Queensbor-

ough National Bank, Primerica and South

State Bank. Combining Brown’s proven

ability to get the attention of Savannah’s

children with the in-depth knowledge of

these top financial executives is a power-

ful approach to reduce foreclosures, ex-

pand home ownership in Savannah and

educate children and their families.

Atlanta Legal Aid has become almost

famous for partnering with many other

Georgia organizations in tackling social

problems that can go beyond providing

legal aid. This has been true even when

Executive Director Steve Gottlieb knew

that the partnership might on occasion

mean less money for Atlanta Legal Aid. In

making this proposal, Gottlieb set up part-

nerships with four organizations where his

legal aid organization could use some help.

The Georgia Heirs Property Law Center,

Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and

Justice, the Truancy Intervention Project

and the Pro Bono Partnership of Atlanta

joined with Atlanta Legal Aid to help pre-

vent the loss of family homes and to revi-

talize low-income communities.

The Georgia Heirs Property Law Cen-

ter will work with families, nonprofits

and municipalities to resolve and prevent

heirs property issues and other barriers

Georgia Bar Foundation

Funds Five Proposals

from Bank of America

Settlement Funds

Bank of America settlement funds are to assist civil indigent legal aid

organizations in providing foreclosure legal assistance or community

redevelopment legal assistance in Georgia.

BY LEN HORTON

ISTOCK.COM/SERGEI_ALESHIN

2017 OCTOBER 29

to preserving and growing family wealth

throughout Georgia. Led by Skipper Stipe

Maas who is probably the most experi-

enced lawyer in Georgia regarding heirs

property law, this relatively new orga-

nization deals with property title issues

where homeownership may cover mul-

tiple generations and where ownership

rights may be difficult to prove.

Georgia Appleseed will partner with

Atlanta Legal Aid to revitalize Cuyler

Brownsville, a hard-hit community in Sa-

vannah. The Truancy Intervention Proj-

ect (TIP) will support the children whose

families have been destabilized by the

foreclosure crisis. TIP will do what it does

best, namely, find ways to keep children

in school no matter their housing situa-

tion. The Pro Bono Partnership of Atlanta

will partner with Atlanta Legal Aid to sup-

port nonprofit organizations throughout

the state that serve disadvantaged Geor-

gians. Its support will include workshops,

webinars and pro bono, and direct legal

assistance for targeted nonprofits already

working in impacted communities.

In total, Atlanta Legal Aid received

$2,636,000 of which $351,800 will go to

the Georgia Heirs Property Law Center,

$134,200 to Georgia Appleseed, $90,000

to the Pro Bono Partnership of Atlanta

and $130,000 to TIP.

Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Founda-

tion received $325,000 to hire an attorney

to work with AVLF community advo-

cates inside schools located in destabilized

communities. AVLF will also use its ex-

pertise in recruiting lawyer volunteers to

improve housing conditions at the same

time it is enforcing rights to habitable

housing and assisting tenants in avoiding

displacement through eviction.

Equal Justice Works (EJW) received

$2.6 million to create the Georgia Housing

Corps (GHC). GHC will promote commu-

nity redevelopment throughout Georgia

over a two-year period. The actual num-

ber of fellows and community organizers

will depend on the memoranda of under-

standing (MOU) with each host organi-

zation, detailing the number of fellows

and community organizers agreed upon.

The MOUs had to be completed by Oct. 1.

EJW is famous for supplying highly edu-

cated, well-trained fellows to work in host

During a visit to SafePath Child

Advocacy Center in Marietta on

Aug. 16, the Georgia Bar Founda-

tion presented the center with

a fellows grant check in the

amount of $10,000.

“We are thrilled to be able to

announce this award to SafePath,”

said Superior Court Judge G. Conley

Ingram. “The money will be used to

provide additional training to the

staff to ensure thorough prepara-

tion when it is required to provide

testimony in the courtroom.”

SafePath’s President Kevin

Rogers, who was presented the

check, said, “SafePath is honored

to receive this award from the

foundation and will put it to good

Georgia Bar Foundation Awards SafePath

a $10,000 Fellows Grant

use in ensuring that our staff is

well trained and fully prepared

when it needs to appear in court.”

The funds were provided by the

Fellows Program of the Georgia

Bar Foundation, which is com-

posed of more than 1,200 Geor-

gia lawyers who are invited to

become fellows in recognition of

their service to their communi-

ties and to the legal profession.

The Georgia Bar Founda-

tion, the charitable arm of the

Supreme Court of Georgia, is

the largest legal charity in the

state. It recently surpassed $100

million in total revenues raised

to fund law-related programs

throughout Georgia

. l

legal aid organizations providing supervi-

sion of the fellows. It is a win-win situa-

tion for host organizations and for EJW.

Georgia Legal Services received

$2,214,967 to hire 10 attorneys to provide

legal assistance over a two-year period to

low-income tenants of private landlords

through its advice line, through direct legal

representation and through court advoca-

cy. The focus is on reducing evictions and

stabilizing communities in Bibb, Chatham,

Dougherty, Floyd, Glynn, Hall, Muscogee,

Richmond and Whitfield counties.

“We are trying to be careful in our stew-

ardship of these valuable funds,” said Kitty

Cohen, president of the Georgia Bar Foun-

dation. “We have recently learned that

Attorney General Sessions in the Justice

Department has ordered that future settle-

ment funds can go only to governmental

organizations and not 501(c)(3) corpora-

tions like the Georgia Bar Foundation. So

the largest single inflow of money into the

foundation may well also be our last when

it comes to federal cy pres funds from the

U.S. Department of Justice.” l

Len Horton

Executive Director

Georgia Bar Foundation

[email protected]

(Left to right) SafePath Community Resource Coordinator Denise Hession; Director of

Clinical Services Derita Swann; Director of Intervention Services Gail Garland; Board

Secretary Lori Patten; CFO Pam Martin; Len Horton; SafePath President Kevin Rogers;

and Foundation Trustee and Cobb County Superior Court Judge G. Conley Ingram.

PHOTO PROVIDED BY SAFEPATH STAFF

GBJ | Feature

30 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

The Baker County Courthouse at Newton.

Built in 1906-07, James Wingfield Golucke,

architect.

Ever since Nelson Tift established his

trading post on the Flint River at Albany

in 1836, Newton, the county town of

Baker County, has languished in Albany’s

shadow. Baker County was cut from Early

County in 1825, and shortly thereafter the

first crude wooden courthouse was erect-

ed at Byron, not far from present day Al-

bany. The county seat was soon moved to

Newton which was laid out on Flint River

well to the south of Tift’s future enter-

prise, and the county’s second courthouse

rose at Newton around 1832. Five years

later, the building witnessed the passage

of Tift’s first steamboat, the Mary Emeline,

on its way from Apalachicola to Albany.

All Newton could do was watch as Al-

bany passed her by, and by 1849, in his

“Statistics of the State of Georgia,” the

reliable George White informs us that

Albany had a population of about 800,

while the county seat at Newton counted

only 30 residents. In 1853, the creation

of Dougherty County with Albany as

the county town doomed Newton to an

obscure fate. Her 1832 frame courthouse

burned in 1873, only to be replaced by a

similar two-story wooden building.

The Baker County

Courthouse at Newton:

The Grand Old

Courthouses of Georgia

BY WILBER W. CALDWELL

PHOTO BY WILBER W. CALDWELL

2017 OCTOBER 31

But it was not the river that ulti-

mately drove Albany’s success, it was

the railroad. As the early voyages of the

Mary Emeline proved, steamboating on

the Flint was a perilous and uncertain

enterprise. Despite considerable effort

to dredge, blast and clear a channel,

the Flint remained a capricious high-

way. In 1873, just as Newton’s second

new courthouse rose, the U.S. Corps of

Engineers made of survey of the Flint.

Their report describes Newton as a

“small village” with “a courthouse, a jail,

a few stores and a population of about

150.” The report goes on to describe the

Flint below Newton as far south as Bain-

bridge as containing, “many serious and

almost impossible obstructions.” A plan

for clearing the Flint was adopted by

The Corps in 1874, but the undertaking

was still not complete in 1910. Defying

all efforts to dredge a navigable channel,

the river remained “narrow” with “many

shoals.” In the meantime, seven railroads

had met at Albany, and her population

exceeded 8,000.

In 1900, tiny Newton remained com-

pletely bypassed, counted just over 300

residents and harbored little hope for

a railroad of her own. The great east-

west lines ran through Albany to the

north and Bainbridge to the south, while

north-south railroads skirted Baker

County passing through Camilla to the

east and Colquitt to the west. Neverthe-

less, at one point, a connecting scheme

did emerge. In 1906, amid the various

plans for a railroad from Albany via Cai-

ro to Quincy, Fla., speculation for the

construction of The Albany, Camilla and

Newton railroad swept through Baker

County. In the end, this grand railroad-

ing scheme came to nothing, and sadly

we have little to document the effects

of such speculation in Newton. Baker

County did not have its own newspaper

until 1912, and no Albany papers from

1906 survive today. Nonetheless, we

know that the county’s first bank, The

Bank of Baker County, was established

in that same year, and it cannot be co-

incidence that the last of Georgia’s Ro-

manesque Revival courthouses rose on

the square in Newton in 1906 amid talk

of a railroad in Baker County.

By 1906, the Romanesque Revival was

long dead in most of America, but the

rural American South clung to symbols

of the past with tenacity unmatched else-

where in the country. James W. Golucke’s

1906 Newton County courthouse was a

near copy of his 1905 Jones County court-

house at Gray. Except for the design of

the original tower and a few details in the

banding and fenestration, this building

also matches Golucke’s court buildings

at McDonough (1897), Blairsville (1899)

and Ellaville (1900).

Sadly, like many of Golucke’s court

buildings, the original tower did not stand

the test of time. In 1925, the Flint River

flooded Newton. When the river returned

to its banks, the high water mark was six

feet up the side of this courthouse. The

footings beneath the tower were seriously

weakened. Shortly thereafter, the origi-

nal tower was razed, and the grotesque

replacement we see today was erected in

its place. In the Flint River flood of 1994,

the high-water mark was nearly 17 feet

up the walls of the old courthouse, and

the old building was abandoned leaving

Newton a near ghost town. Today the

building has been restored and designated

a historical landmark.

In a quirk of history, just as the Ro-

manesque Revival breathed a dying

breath in Georgia, James Wingfield Go-

lucke, the architect of so many of its most

enduring monuments, died in the ob-

scure village of Newton. In 1907, as Go-

lucke’s courthouse neared completion,

the architect was arrested and placed in

the Baker County jail for alleged misap-

propriation of county funds in connec-

tion with the construction of the Baker

County courthouse. The frail Golucke

was crushed by these accusations and

deeply shamed by his incarceration. On

Oct. 7, 1907, he unsuccessfully attempted

suicide, and on Oct. 26 he died at the age

of 50 while still in prison. A contem-

porary Baker County history suggests

that Golucke may have been wrongfully

accused by local culprits, who were at-

tempting to cover their own crimes.

In 1907, the untimely death of James

Golucke marked the end of an era for Pic-

turesque public architecture in Georgia.

Alexander Bruce, arguably the master of

the Picturesque in Georgia, had retired

in 1904. Although the popularity of the

Picturesque had lingered in the Ameri-

can South, the Romantic architectural

epic came to an abrupt end in Georgia

with the erection of the Baker County

courthouse and the sudden death of its

creator. Perhaps it was a fitting end. The

Picturesque had come to a sudden end in

the North 15 years earlier, and its great

guiding genius, Henry Hobson Richard-

son, had met an equally untimely death

in 1886.

Surely, James Golucke was no Rich-

ardson. Nonetheless, the comparison is

interesting. In the growing urban cen-

ters of the North and Midwest, Richard-

son and his followers sought to create a

distinctly American architectural style

to boldly flaunt the emerging nation’s

industrial and financial success. Mean-

while, way out in the dusty fields of rural

Georgia, James Golucke sought to tame

the massive Richardsonian beast. He de-

signed soft, simple, pastoral Romantic

forms, which stood for a less ambitious

form of progress, and simultaneously re-

called an ancient age. Toward the end of

his career H. H. Richardson had begun

to create a uniquely modern idiom that

few would immediately comprehend.

Golucke on the other hand, showed no

such originality. He was one of the first

architects in the Deep South to embrace

the new Classicism, and with the same

zeal he had lavished on the Picturesque,

he fashioned Classical duel symbols to

soothe the troubled and divided mind of

the South. l

Excerpted by Wilber W. Caldwell,

“The Courthouse and the Depot, The

Architecture of Hope in an Age of

Despair, A Narrative Guide to Railroad

Expansion and its Impact on Public

Architecture in Georgia, 1833-1910,”

(Macon: Mercer University Press, 2001).

Hardback, 624 pages, 300 photos, 33

maps, 3 Appendices, complete Index.

This book is available for $50 from

book sellers or for $40 from the Mercer

University Press at www.mupress.org

or call the Mercer Press at 800-342-

0841 inside Georgia or 800-637-2378

outside Georgia.

GBJ | Feature

32 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

Notice of Expiring Board Terms

Listed below are the members of the State Bar of Georgia Board of Governors whose terms will expire in June

2018. These incumbents and those interested in running for a specic post should refer to the election schedule

(posted below) for important dates.

State Bar of Georgia 2018 Election Schedule

2017

AUG 11 Deadline for submission of election

schedule for publication in October issue

Georgia Bar Journal

OCT Official Election Notice, October issue

Georgia Bar Journal

DEC 1 Nominating petition package mailed to

incumbent Board of Governors members

and other members who request a package

2018

JAN 4–6 Nomination of Officers at Midyear Board

Meeting, Westin Atlanta Perimeter North,

Atlanta

JAN 26 Deadline for receipt of nominating petitions

for incumbent Board members including

incumbent nonresident (out of state)

members

FEB 23 Deadline for receipt of nominating petitions

for new Board members including new

nonresident (out of state) members

MAR 9 Deadline for write-in candidates for officer

to file a written statement (not less than 10

days prior to mailing of ballots (Article VII,

Section 1 (c))

MAR 9 Deadline for write-in candidates for Board

of Governors to file a written statement (not

less than 10 days prior to mailing of ballots

(Article VII, Section 2 (c))

MAR 26 Ballots mailed

APR 27 11:59 p.m. deadline for ballots to be cast in

order to be valid

MAY 4 Election service submits results to the

Elections Committee

MAY 11 Election results reported and made available

Alapaha Circuit, Post 2

Hon. Clayton Alan Tomlinson, Nashville

Alcovy Circuit, Post 2

Michael R. Jones Sr., Loganville

Atlanta Circuit, Post 2

Kent Edward Altom, Alpharetta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 4



Atlanta Circuit, Post 6

Dwight L. Thomas, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 8

Hon. Paige Reese Whitaker, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 10

Scott Dewitt Delius, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 12

Elena Kaplan, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 14

Edward B. Krugman, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 16

James Daniel Blitch IV, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 18

Foy R. Devine, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 20

Jennifer Auer Jordan, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 22

Frank B. Strickland, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 24

Joseph Anthony Roseborough, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 26

Anthony B. Askew, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 28

J. Henry Walker IV, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 31

Michael Brian Terry, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 33

Hon. Susan Eichler Edlein, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 35

Terrence Lee Croft, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 37

Samuel M. Matchett, Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 38

Michael Dickinson Hobbs Jr., Atlanta

Atlanta Circuit, Post 40

Carol V. Clark, Atlanta

Atlantic Circuit, Post 1



Augusta Circuit, Post 2

William James Keogh III, Augusta

Augusta Circuit, Post 4

William R. McCracken, Augusta

Bell Forsyth Circuit

Hon. Philip C. Smith, Cumming

Blue Ridge Circuit, Post 1

Hon. David Lee Cannon Jr., Canton

Brunswick Circuit, Post 2



Chattahoochee Circuit, Post 1

Amy Carol Walters, Columbus

Chattahoochee Circuit, Post 3

Thomas F. Gristina, Columbus

Cherokee Circuit, Post 1

Randall H. Davis, Cartersville

Clayton Circuit, Post 2

Harold B. Watts, Jonesboro

Cobb Circuit, Post 1

Dennis C. O’Brien, Marietta

Cobb Circuit, Post 3

Hon. David P. Darden, Marietta

Cobb Circuit, Post 5

Dawn Renee Levine, Marietta

Cobb Circuit, Post 7

William C. Gentry, Marietta

Conasauga Circuit, Post 1

Terry Leighton Miller, Dalton

Coweta Circuit, Post 1

Gerald P. Word, Atlanta

Dougherty Circuit, Post 1

Joseph West Dent, Albany

Douglas Circuit

Ryan Reese Leonard, Douglasville

2017 OCTOBER 33

Eastern Circuit, Post 1

Sarah Brown Akins, Savannah

Eastern Circuit, Post 3

Jonathan B. Pannell, Savannah

Enotah Circuit

Hon. Joy Renea Parks, Cleveland

Flint Circuit, Post 2

John Philip Webb, Stockbridge

Griffin Circuit, Post 1



Gwinnett Circuit, Post 2

Judy C. King, Lawrenceville

Gwinnett Circuit, Post 4

Gerald Davidson Jr., Lawrenceville

Houston Circuit

Carl A. Veline Jr., Warner Robins

Lookout Mountain Circuit, Post 1

Archibald A. Farrar Jr., Summerville

Lookout Mountain Circuit, Post 3

Lawrence Alan Stagg, Ringgold

Macon Circuit, Post 2

Thomas W. Herman, Macon

Member-at-Large, Post 3*

Tracee Ready Benzo, Atlanta

Middle Circuit, Post 1

John Kendall Gross, Metter

Northeastern Circuit, Post 1

Mark William Alexander, Gainesville

Northern Circuit, Post 2

Hon. Richard Dale Campbell, Elberton

Ocmulgee Circuit, Post 1

Carl Santos Cansino, Milledgeville

Ocmulgee Circuit, Post 3

Christopher Donald Huskins, Eatonton

Oconee Circuit, Post 1

Ashley W. McLaughlin, Eastman

Ogeechee Circuit, Post 1

Daniel Brent Snipes, Statesboro

Out-of-State, Post 2

William J. Monahan, Washington, D.C.

Paulding Circuit

Martin Enrique Valbuena, Dallas

Rockdale Circuit

William Gilmore Gainer, Conyers

Rome Circuit, Post 2

J. Anderson Davis, Rome

South Georgia Circuit, Post 1

Lawton Chad Heard Jr., Camilla

Southern Circuit, Post 1

Christopher Frank West, Thomasville

Southern Circuit, Post 3

H. Burke Sherwood, Valdosta

Stone Mountain Circuit, Post 1

Hon. Stacey K. Hydrick, Decatur

Stone Mountain Circuit, Post 3

Hon. J. Antonio, DelCampo, Atlanta

Stone Mountain Circuit, Post 5

Amy Viera Howell, Atlanta

Stone Mountain Circuit, Post 7

John G. Haubenreich, Atlanta

Stone Mountain Circuit, Post 9

Sherry Boston, Decatur

Tallapoosa Circuit, Post 2

Brad Joseph McFall, Cedartown

Tifton Circuit

Hon. Render Max Heard Jr., Tifton

Waycross Circuit, Post 1

Douglass Kirk Farrar, Douglas

Western Circuit, Post 2

Edward Donald Tolley, Athens

*Post to be appointed by president-

elect.

Does your firm produce a newsletter? Have you

written a law review, magazine or newspaper

article on a legal topic? Would you like to expand

your audience, receive free publicity and be

recognized in the Georgia Bar Journal? If so, the Law-

Related Education (LRE) Program needs you!

One of the resources we offer to teachers and

other members of the public is a series of online

LiveBinders on a variety of legal topics and famous

cases, from employment, intellectual property

and tort law, to important civil rights cases, to

historic trials such as the Leo Frank case, Marbury

v. Madison, and Gregg v. Georgia. Each LiveBinder

contains not only lesson plans, but also resources

such as scholarly articles and links to relevant

current events. Our LiveBinders have been used

by hundreds of teachers, both within and outside

the state of Georgia, and one of them, dealing

with the tension between the rights of free press

and fair trial, has been viewed more than 6,500

times nationwide. A list of all of our LiveBinders is

available at http://bit.ly/2ubBwvB.

We are looking for new resources to add to our

LiveBinders. We can upload entire documents, link

to a specific article, or link to an entire newsletter,

other database or subject-specific website (no

firm home pages, please). If you would like to

share your knowledge with a wider audience and

be recognized by your peers, simply complete a

LiveBinder Submission Form at

http://bit.ly/2hvGj5u.

Any questions regarding the suitability of a

particular resource for inclusion in the LRE

Program’s LiveBinders should be directed to

Deborah Craytor, director of Law-Related Education,

[email protected] or 404-527-8785. l

Law-Related Education Program

Seeking Attorney Articles

Law-related

Educa ion

Program

34 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | Georgia Lawyer Spotlight

Were you looking to leave Young Harris

College, or did the opportunity at Mercer

just come up and you decided it was too good

to pass up?

It was a real surprise. I was not looking

to leave Young Harris when some of our

alumni and judges who were serving on

the search committee for the dean ap-

proached me last fall. I said, “Thank you,

but no thanks,” and didn’t give it much

more thought. I presumed they went

ahead with the search and didn’t find

what they were looking for because they

came back to me this spring with a full-

court press, so I started having some se-

rious conversations then. It really made

me think about why I love this institution

and whether I wanted to stay at Young

Harris until I retired, or whether this was

something that I really wanted to do be-

cause it was too good an opportunity to

pass up at a place that I love.

What excites you about coming back to Macon?

It’s the combination of being back in Ma-

con and at Mercer Law School. I love this

beautiful building, and I love the faculty

and staff, a lot of whom were here when

I was a student here. Being in Macon

has been a true added bonus. Macon has

changed a lot since I was a student. We

bought a house in an area that used to be

cow pastures when I was in school here,

and now it’s a beautifully developed area

of nice neighborhoods and convenient to

everything in town. The excitement of

downtown Macon is unbelievable. Folks

here complain a lot about not having a

place to park in downtown Macon, but

that’s indicative of what is happening

here. There are great restaurants and en-

tertainment venues, and the redevelop-

ment of downtown Macon is something

to behold.

It’s been 31 years since you graduated from

Mercer. What is different and what is the

same about the law school since you were

here as a student and now again as dean?

The best parts are still alive and well here.

The camaraderie among the student body,

and the friendships that are so easily made.

The accessibility of the faculty is still a hall-

mark of Mercer. I am happy that this envi-

ronment is still very much what nurtured

me and pushed me and challenged me and

helped me become a good lawyer.

What has been most surprising is the

change in curriculum, not just at Mer-

cer, but at all law schools. When I was a

student, the curriculum was pretty much

prescribed for all three years. There were

very few opportunities for electives, but

that’s not the case today. After the first

year at most law schools, students take

almost anything they want, which was

absolutely stunning to me because we’ve

given so much freedom of choice to stu-

dents who don’t necessarily know what

they don’t know about what practice is

going to be like, or what the bar exam

is going to require. I have been having a

lot of discussions with our faculty about

whether that is still meeting the needs of

students today. In some respects, giving

choices to students is as it should be, but

I think we still have to do our job as the

professionals to make sure students are

adequately educated and prepared for the

bar exam and for practice.

What are some of the challenges that legal

education faces in the 21st century?

When the recession hit, law firms quit hir-

ing at the same levels and reduced salaries.

I don’t think the jobs are going to rebound

to where they were prerecession at any time

in the near future. Law firms have learned

how to operate more leanly, and technol-

ogy has moved into the legal field in ways

that five or 10 years ago people would never

have believed. If a computer can write a le-

gal memo, why would a firm hire an asso-

A Conversation

with Cathy Cox

In this installment of the Georgia Lawyer Spotlight, Editorial Board Member

Jacob Daly interviews Cathy Cox, who was named dean of Mercer University

School of Law in July. She previously served as president of Young Harris College

and Georgia’s secretary of state.

BY JACOB E. DALY

PHOTO BY JENNIFER R. MASON

2017 OCTOBER 35

ciate at a premium price and pay benefits?

We need to do a better job of looking at the

larger marketplace and making sure that we

are preparing our students for the jobs of

the future and not just treading along the

way we’ve always turned out lawyers.

One of the biggest challenges that Mercer

faces as a private institution is cost. The

annual cost of tuition and living expenses

today is about $60,000 a year, so when you

are asking prospective students to spend that

much money per year for three years, how

do you convince them that Mercer is the

right choice rather than a public school that

would be dramatically less expensive?

I said almost exactly that in my first facul-

ty meeting, that we have to make sure we

know what that extra value is. Students

have options today, so the extra value that

they get out of a private institution like

Mercer includes the accessibility of the

faculty, the small class sizes, the friend-

ships that you make because of this re-

ally collegial environment, our career

services office knowing students from

the first year on and knowing what their

ambitions are, and nearly 90 percent of

our graduates are employed or enrolled

within less than a year after graduation.

There is a return on the investment

here, and these are things that we can

talk to prospective students about. Pri-

vate schools know they have to compete

with some really good public law schools

in Georgia and around the South, so we

have to be very generous with scholar-

ships and financial aid. About 95 percent

of our first-year class this year received a

scholarship, so we’re trying to reach all of

the students who need financial aid.

How do you control the rising costs short

of increasing enrollment in order to

increase revenue?

That is the ultimate budgeting challenge

that almost every law school is faced with

right now. We have to make extra fundrais-

ing efforts among our alumni, and I’m going

to be out talking to our alumni about why

they love this institution and how they can

help us maintain our standards and do ev-

erything we need to do to support our facul-

ty, staff and programs here. We’ve also had

to challenge our faculty and staff to do more

with less. It also gives us the opportunity to

look at new revenue programs. Mercer has

not done a lot in terms of non-JD programs,

but now may be the right time for us to do

more in that regard because there are people

who want legal knowledge but not the full

law school experience.

Is a legal education worth its high cost?

Absolutely. The critical thinking skills you

learn in law school that help you become

an invaluable problem solver are like none

you learn anywhere else, and I think that

is the inherent value of a law degree. I

think people in business like to hire law-

yers because they know we learn to think,

not only about one side of a problem, but

about 20 sides of a problem and can help

them anticipate what might happen with

certain issues. We learn to think about

and anticipate all of the arguments about

an issue, and that’s not the type of educa-

tion you gain anywhere else other than law

school. I think law is the most exciting and

flexible of all types of graduate education.

You’ve said that your goal is to make Mercer the

premier law school in Georgia. What do you

think is needed for Mercer to attain that status?

Our goal is to be the premier law school

in the state and in the Southeast, and we

want to be every prospective student’s first

choice. To do that, we have to assure them

that this is going to be the best fit for them.

It won’t be for every student, but we want

them to visit because about 87 percent of

our current first-year students say the visit

here really impacted their decision to be

here. We have to do everything right to

make that happen. We have to be the best

in the bar passage rate, in the job place-

ment rate, and in fundraising to support

our faculty and staff and the programs

here. I’m not here to run a mediocre law

school. I’m here to raise us up to be the best

on all of these measurements, and that’s

going to take a great team effort from ev-

eryone here. I know how much they love

this place and how much they believe in

what we’re doing.

Where do you see Mercer five, 10 and 20

years from now?

We’re about to dive into our next strategic

plan, so I’m very excited about what that

will look like and how that can shape who

we’re going to be, particularly in the next

five years. I think we have to be a lot more

nimble than we have been in the last five,

10 or 20 years. The ground beneath us

has shifted, and so we have to be in tune

with that and address that with perhaps

smaller enrollments and other programs

that meet the needs of the marketplace.

As I mentioned, perhaps with some non-

JD programs that still make us the place to

go for legal knowledge in whatever form

the marketplace wants.

Law schools around the country are

closing because they can’t get the enroll-

ment, they can’t keep their bar pass rates

up, they can’t provide the type of quality

education that students want, and I want

Mercer to never come close to that kind of

consideration. We want to train the best

lawyers to go back into all of the commu-

nities in this area and beyond to provide

the best type of problem solving possible.

We have to focus on what the needs are

today rather than continuing to do what

we’ve been doing the last 144 years.

Where do you see yourself five, 10 and 20

years from now?

The average tenure of a college president

is about five years, and I stayed at Young

Harris for 10 years. I don’t like to jump

around from job to job. I take jobs that

I think are really interesting because I

think I might want to do them for a re-

ally long time. So I hope they’ll keep me

on board and let me drive this train for

a lot of years to come. I’m excited about

the adventure. l

Jacob E. Daly is of counsel

with Freeman Mathis &

Gary, LLP, in Atlanta and a

member of the Georgia Bar

Journal Editorial Board. He

represents private companies,

government entities and their

employees in personal injury litigation

with a focus on defending property

owners, management companies and

security companies in premises

liability lawsuits.

Bench

&Bar

TO PLACE AN ANNOUNCEMENT

Contact Lane Sosebee | [email protected] | 404-527-8736

36 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

Henning Mediation and Arbitration Service, Inc.,

announced that Joseph W. Watkins, partner,

Watkins, Lourie, Roll & Chance, PC, joined their

panel of neutrals. Watkins has practiced as a civil

trial lawyer for more than 40 years. He has tried

numerous cases for plaintiffs and defendants in

state and federal courts, and has argued cases before the Supreme

Court of Georgia and Court of Appeals of Georgia, as well as

before the 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney Christopher Adams, The Law Office of

Christopher W. Adams, P.C., was sworn in as

second vice president of the National Association

of Criminal Defense Lawyers at the association’s

annual meeting in San Francisco, Calif., in July.

The National Association of Criminal Defense

Lawyers is the pre-eminent organization advancing the mis-

sion of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due pro-

cess for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing.

Baker Donelson announced that shareholder Jodi

D. Taylor received the firm’s 2017 Work-Life

Warrior Award. Baker Donelson established the

Work-Life Warrior Award to honor an attorney

in the firm who demonstrates an ongoing com-

mitment to excellence in maintaining a healthy

work-life balance or has advocated on behalf of work-life bal-

ance issues for the benefit of others.

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton announced that

Counsel Kathleen “Katie” Barton was appointed

to the Partnership Against Domestic Violence’s

(PADV) Board of Directors. For 40 years, PADV,

the largest nonprofit domestic violence organiza-

tion in Georgia, has provided professional, com-

passionate and empowering support to battered women and

their children in metro-Atlanta.

Swift, Currie, McGhee and Hiers LLP announced the firm was

selected to join the Network of Trial Law Firms, a not-for-

profit corporation whose membership is comprised of inde-

pendent U.S. firms with reputations for excellence in trial and

litigation practice. The network helps to provide a framework

for defense law firms to work together by sharing trial and

litigation expertise and resources for corporate and insurance

company clients.

Taylor English Duma LLP announced that Eric

S. Fisher was elected to the board of directors for

the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Jus-

tice. The Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and

Justice is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest

law center with the mission to increase justice in

Georgia through law and policy reform. Georgia

Appleseed addresses serious issues of public con-

cern by enlisting the volunteer services of lawyers

and other professionals from around the state.

The firm also announced that attorney

Randi M. Warren graduated from the State

Bar of Georgia’s 2017 Young Lawyers Divi-

sion Leadership Academy. The YLD Lead-

ership Academy is a program for young lawyers to fur-

ther develop their leadership skills while engaging with

others in their profession, communities and state. War-

ren was also elected to a one-year term on the YLD

Representative Council.

The American Red Cross of Atlanta awarded

Miles Alexander with its LifeBoard Chairman’s

Award in recognition of his dedication and com-

mitment as a lifelong blood donor. The Life-

Board Chairman’s Award is given to an individ-

ual who exemplifies the highest level of

commitment to their organization’s blood program. Alexan-

der’s donation of more than 20 gallons since 1948 has poten-

tially saved the lives of more than 500 individuals.

Berman Fink Van Horn P.C. announced it achieved Partner

in Prevention status as awarded by Darkness to Light, an in-

ternational nonprofit organization committed to empower-

ing adults to prevent child sexual abuse. This designation is

bestowed upon organizations which take extra steps to pro-

tect children by training staff to understand the issue of child

sexual abuse, identify unsafe situations and practices, and re-

act responsibly in the best interest of children. The firm pro-

vided Stewards of Children

training to more than 90 percent

of its management and staff.

The Saylor Law Firm LLP an-

nounced that founding partner Jac-

quelyn “Jackie” Saylor was elected

vice chair/chair-elect of the Atlanta

Bar Association’s Estate Planning &

Probate Section and founding part-

ner Murray Saylor was appointed as a

member-at-large of the Atlanta Bar Association’s Tax Law section.

Kudos

J. SAYLOR M. SAYLOR

FISHER

WARREN

2017 OCTOBER 37

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, announced that

partner Joyce Klemmer joined the board of direc-

tors of the Atlanta Bar Association Dispute Reso-

lution Section. Klemmer also currently serves on

the board of directors of the Atlanta Bar Associa-

tion Intellectual Property Section.

Leadership Atlanta announced the following members of its

Class of 2018: Germaine Austin, Thomas Kennedy Sampson &

Tompkins LLP; Nora Benavidez, Law Office of Nora Benavi-

dez; David Broussard, Greenberg Traurig LLP; Andrew Coo-

per, United Parcel Service; Katherine Dunn, U.S. Department

of Education Office for Civil Rights; Jake Evans, Thompson

Hine LLP; Emerson Girardeau III, Eversheds Sutherland LLP;

Ashley Heintz, Jones Day; Labriah Lee, American Israel Pub-

lic Affairs Committee; Phi Nguyen, Bendin Sumrall & Ladner,

LLC; Sam Park, Georgia General Assembly; Brandi Reeves,

Fulton County Government Public Defender’s Office; James

Sturm Jr., KPMG; Karli Swift, ADP, LLC; and Samuel Wil-

liams, U.S. Housing & Urban Development Department. Lead-

ership Atlanta is the oldest continuously running training pro-

gram of its type in the country.

On the Move

IN ATLANTA

Boyd Collar Nolen & Tuggle announced the ad-

dition of Jennifer K. “Jenni” Brown as an associ-

ate. Brown focuses her practice in a range of fam-

ily law issues, including complex divorce

litigation, child custody and support disputes, and

paternity and legitimation. The firm is located at

3330 Cumberland Blvd., 100 City View, Suite 999, Atlanta, GA

30339; 770-953-4300; Fax 770-953-4300; www.bcntlaw.com.

Locke Lord LLP named Bryan G. Harrison man-

aging partner of the firm’s Atlanta office. Har-

rison is a partner in the firm’s intellectual prop-

erty litigation practice group. His practice

focuses on prosecuting and defending patent

infringement actions, serving as regional or na-

tional litigation counsel for clients and appearing in various

courts in more than 30 states, Canada and the European

Union. The firm is located at Terminus 200, Suite 1200, 3333

Piedmont Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30305; 404-870-4600; Fax

404-872-5547; www.lockelord.com.

Attorney Gary M. Kazin joined Zirkle & Hoff-

man Mediation Services, LLC, as a mediator in

workers’ compensation cases. The office is lo-

cated at 400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1750, At-

lanta, GA 30339; 770-551-8700; Fax 770-551-

3856; www.zirklaw.com.

Hall Booth Smith, P.C., announced that Tom

Mazziotti joined as a partner. Mazziotti’s practice

focuses on health care, product liability, fire cause

and origin, and transportation matters. He also

counsels clients on product safety, product recall

and reporting and regulatory compliance matters

before federal and state agencies including the Consumer Prod-

uct Safety Commission and the National Highway Traffic Safe-

ty Administration. The firm is located at 191 Peachtree St. NE,

Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404-954-5000; Fax 404-954-

5020; www.hallboothsmith.com.

James-Bates-Brannan-Groover-LLP announced

the addition of Robert L. Swartwood II as of

counsel. Swartwood provides comprehensive

corporate counsel to businesses with a specific

emphasis on mergers and acquisitions in the

middle market. The firm is located at 3399

Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30326; 404-997-

6020; Fax 404-997-6021; www.jamesbatesllp.com.

Levine Smith Snider & Wilson, LLC, announced

that R. Andrew Snider joined the firm as an as-

sociate. Snider focuses on all aspects of family law

including divorce, modifications, protective or-

ders, child custody, legitimation, grandparent

visitation, and prenuptial and postnuptial agree-

ments. The firm is located at 3490 Piedmont Road NE, Suite

1150, Atlanta, GA 30305; 404-237-5700; Fax 404-237-5757;

www.lsswlaw.com.

Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP announced that

G. Marshall Kent Jr. was elected partner-in-charge

of the firm’s Atlanta office. Kent joins the firm’s

management committee, which is responsible for

overseeing the operations of the southeast region-

al firm’s seven offices located in North Carolina,

South Carolina and Georgia. Kent’s practice focuses in the areas

of creditor/debtor rights, commercial, construction and bank-

ruptcy litigation, and general corporate law. The firm is located

at 1180 W. Peachtree St. NW, Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309;

404-962-1000; Fax 404-962-1200; www.smithmoorelaw.com.

38 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

Baker Donelson announced the

addition of Sebastian Meis as a

shareholder, Felix Faerber as an

attorney and Anthony Thompson

Jr. as an associate. Meis advises

companies in corporate matters,

particularly in the formation and

restructuring of corporations and partnerships

both in Germany and the United States. Faerber

represents domestic and international companies

in areas including corporate and partnership law,

cross-border transactions, mergers, acquisitions,

foreign direct investment and intellectual prop-

erty. Thompson focuses his practice on repre-

senting owners, investors and developers in the acquisition,

disposition, development and leasing of commercial real estate,

including multifamily complexes, mixed-use developments, re-

tail centers, hotels and self-storage facilities. The firm is located

at 3414 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1600, Atlanta, GA 30326;

404-577-6000; Fax 404-221-6501; www.bakerdonelson.com.

Georgia Legal Services Program (GLSP) an-

nounced that Ira Foster was named general coun-

sel and associate director. As the in-house gen-

eral counsel, Foster reviews policy and procedure

and works with the executive director to ensure

high quality legal services are provided. Foster

previously served as the managing attorney of GLSP’s Macon

office. The office is located at 104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 250,

Atlanta, GA 30303; 404-206-5175; www.glsp.org.

Hunton & Williams LLP announced G. Scott

Rafshoon joined as a partner in the Atlanta of-

fice. Rafshoon represents clients involved in

mergers and acquisitions and other corporate

matters. His practice also includes advising com-

panies in connection with mergers, acquisitions,

divestitures, corporate governance and joint ventures. The

firm is located at 600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 4100, Atlanta, GA

30308; 404-888-4000; Fax 404-888-4190; www.hunton.com.

Attorney Paul Knowlton joined the McAfee

School of Theology at Mercer University as the

founding director of the newly created Institute

for Spirituality in the Professions. Knowlton re-

cently served as CEO of Morningstar Children

and Family Services. The Institute is located on

Mercer’s Atlanta campus at 3001 Mercer University Drive, At-

lanta, GA 30341; 404-245-0957; www.mercer.edu.

Taylor English Duma LLP announced the addi-

tion of R. Wayne Bond as partner and Deborah

J. Livesay as counsel. Bond joined the firm from

Seyfarth Shaw LLP where he focused his prac-

tice on complex commercial litigation and class

action cases. He deals with breach of contract,

corporate shareholder and partnership disputes,

corporate liability, false advertising, profes-

sional malpractice and government investiga-

tions. Livesay focuses her practice on labor and

employment, and represents management in all

aspects of labor-management relations, equal

employment opportunity and other employ-

ment-related issues. The firm is located at 1600 Parkwood

Circle, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30339; 770-434-6868; Fax 770-

434-7376; www.taylorenglish.com.

Adams and Reese LLP announced

the opening of an office in At-

lanta, managed by founding part-

ners Ron C. Bingham II, Bryan E.

Busch and Matthew B. Norton.

The firm also announced the

addition of Sameer K. Kapoor,

Amy L. Hanna Keeney, Brian D.

Pierce and John A. Thomson Jr.

as special counsel; and Laura H.

Mirmelli and David Stewart as as-

sociates. Bingham advises clients

regarding commercial workouts,

receiverships, bankruptcy and

commercial litigation matters in

state and federal courts through-

out the country. Busch represents

financial institutions, hedge funds,

banks, credit unions, servicers and

other lenders in all types of finan-

cial litigation. Norton focuses his

practice on real estate-related

matters and secured transactions

collateralized by both real estate

and other property. Kapoor rep-

resents the interests of secured

lenders and other creditors in out-of-court

workouts and restructuring transactions, bank-

ruptcy proceedings and other financial litiga-

tion matters. Keeney defends businesses in state

and federal court litigation and brings signifi-

cant experience representing financial institu-

tions—including mortgage services and auto

lenders—in a broad range of litigation matters that includes

contested foreclosures, repossession disputes involving per-

sonal property collateral, homeowners’ association disputes,

reformation actions, trash-out claims, REO disputes, lien

priority disputes and quit title claims. Pierce represents cli-

MEIS

THOMPSON

FAERBER

BOND

LIVESAY

BINGHAM

NORTON

BUSCH

KAPOOR

KEENEY PIERCE

THOMSON MIRMELLI

STEWART

2017 OCTOBER 39

ents in the acquisition, development, leasing and disposition

of commercial properties. Additionally, he represents both

borrowers and institutional lenders in commercial property

transactions. Thomson represents a variety of clients in mat-

ters related to commercial finance and debtor/creditor issues.

Mirmelli represents financial institutions in connection with

distressed real estate and commercial loans. Stewart repre-

sents clients regarding corporate and commercial real estate

transactions, including corporate formations, asset and stock

purchases, commercial leasing and a variety of secured trans-

actions. The firm is located at 3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite

450, Atlanta, GA 30326; 470-427-3700; Fax 404-500-5975;

www.adamsandreese.com.

Lee & Hayes, PLLC, announced the addition of

Bruce Bower as partner. Bower helps companies

with complex patent issues involving litigation,

strategic counseling, prosecution and licensing. He

has litigated patent disputes in U.S. District

Courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission

and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He also

prosecutes patent applications in various technologies before the

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The firm is located at 1175

Peachtree St. NE, 100 Colony Square, Suite 2000, Atlanta, GA

30361; 404-815-1900; Fax 509-323-8979; www.leehayes.com.

Alston & Bird announced the addition of Paul

Monnin as a partner. A trial lawyer with more

than 20 years of securities litigation and civil and

criminal regulatory defense experience, Monnin

has conducted internal investigations on behalf

of numerous Fortune 500 corporations. His com-

mercial litigation engagements have included successful tem-

porary restraining order and preliminary injunction proceed-

ings, dispositive motion practice, bench and jury verdicts

related to contract, business tort, mergers and acquisitions,

antitrust, patent, real estate and secured lending litigation, in-

cluding class actions and multi-district litigation in federal and

state courts. The firm is located at One Atlantic Center, 1201

W. Peachtree St., Suite 4900, Atlanta, GA 30309; 404-881-

7000; Fax 404-881-7777; www.alston.com.

DLA Piper announced that Kevin Gooch joined

the firm’s finance practice as a partner. Gooch

represents financial institutions, corporate bor-

rowers and private equity funds in complex fi-

nance and restructuring transactions, including

syndicated credit facilities, bilateral loan transac-

tions, acquisition financings, asset-based financings and notes

offerings. Gooch also has experience advising publicly traded

borrowers and clients in the health care space on credit facili-

ties and secured loans. The firm is located at One Atlantic Cen-

ter, 1201 W. Peachtree St., Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA, 30309;

404-736-7800; Fax 404-682-7800; www.dlapiper.com.

Take Your

Legal Career

to the Next

Level

Specialized Training

for Attorneys

Learn more at law.emory.edu/llm

Email us at LLMadmission@emory.edu

New Online

Master of Laws (LLM)

in business law and health law

Increase your practice area knowledge—to

better serve your clients and enhance your

career—with advanced training from one

of the nation’s top-ranked law schools.

Two Concentrations: The new online LLM

is offered in two concentrations: Business

Law and Regulation and Health Care Law,

Policy, and Regulation

Now Online: Complete the program

in only 15 months with three short

residencies; enroll now for classes starting

January 2018

Scholarships: Scholarships and ﬁnancial

aid are available

GA Bar Journal_NEW.indd 1 9/14/2017 2:54:25 PM

40 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

Drew Eckl & Farnham announced the addition

of Timothy Veith as of counsel and Shannon

Fishel as an associate. Veith has been a corpo-

rate and transactional attorney for 25 years. His

experience includes private and public corporate

finance, and mergers and acquisitions transac-

tions, conduit and securitization financing,

banking and securities regulation, and litigation

and mediation management. Fishel focuses her

practice on general casualty and commercial liti-

gation, and possesses expertise in appellate prac-

tice. The firm is located at 303 Peachtree St. NE,

Suite 3500, Atlanta, GA 30308; 404-885-6408;

Fax 404-876-0992; www.deflaw.com.

IN BRUNSWICK

HunterMaclean announced that Patrick Webb

joined the firm as a partner. Webb focuses his

practice in the field of commercial real estate de-

velopment, leasing and finance, in addition to

related areas including corporate finance, joint

ventures and general corporate transactions. He

has in-depth experience in the purchase and sale of multi-mil-

lion dollar office buildings and multifamily apartment com-

plexes. The firm is located at 777 Gloucester St., Suite 400,

Brunswick, GA 31520; 912-262-5996; Fax 912-279-0586;

www.huntermaclean.com.

Hall Booth Smith, P.C., announced Stephanie Mc-

Donald joined the firm as of counsel. McDonald

focuses on trial work in insurance defense, family

law, criminal defense and personal injury law. She

has extensive pre-trial and jury trial experience

spanning two decades in federal and state court for

both civil and criminal defense matters. The firm is located at

3528 Darien Highway, Suite 300, Brunswick, GA 31525; 912-

554-0093; Fax 912-554-1973; www.hallboothsmith.com.

IN MACON

James-Bates-Brannan-Groover-LLP announced

that Christopher R. Conley joined the firm as an

associate. Conley’s practice focuses on civil litiga-

tion, where he represents clients in business, em-

ployment, estate, contract and personal injury

matters. The firm is located at 231 Riverside

Drive, Macon, GA 31201; 478-742-4280; Fax 478-742-8720;

www.jamesbatesllp.com.

IN SAVANNAH

HunterMaclean announced that Louann Bron-

stein joined the firm as a partner. Bronstein fo-

cuses her practice in the field of corporate law,

with extensive experience working with major

corporations, middle market and closely held

companies ranging from start-up businesses to

internationally recognized companies. She has closed major

deals representative of the full spectrum of business transac-

tions, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures,

strategic alliances and consolidations. The firm is located at

200 E. Saint Julian St., Savannah, GA 31412; 912-236-0261;

Fax 912-236-4936; www.huntermaclean.com.

The Eichholz Law Firm, P.C., announced the ad-

dition of Fatima Alexis Zeidan as a partner.

Zeidan practices in the areas of personal injury

and civil litigation. She also handles cases ranging

from minor motor vehicle collisions to cata-

strophic injury cases. Zeidan has tried cases

throughout multiple states and presented oral arguments in the

South Carolina Court of Appeals. The firm is located at 530

Stephenson Ave., Suite 200, Savannah, GA 31405; 912-335-

4580; Fax 912-629-2590; www.thejusticelawyer.com.

VEITH

FISHEL

FROM THE NIXON

WHITE HOUSE TO

TRUMP TOWER

session providing a unique look

at executive power, judicial ap-

pointments and the back story of

Roe v. Wade.

Featuring:

John Dean &Jim Robenalt

ICLE : Speaker Series

3 CLE Hours Including

1 Ethics and 1 Professionalism

TUESDAY, OCT. 31

VISIT WWW.ICLEGA.ORG TO REGISTER

CLEcontentAd_WH.indd 1 9/26/2017 11:09:55 AM

ATTORNEY COACHES ARE NEEDED FOR

HIGH SCHOOL TEAMS THROUGHOUT GEORGIA

Serve as a mentor to a team in your area and make a positive impact in your community.

CLE credit is available for coaching a mock trial team!

JUDGING PANEL VOLUNTEERS NEEDED FOR:

2018 REGIONALS (16 locations statewide—weekend of Jan. 27)

2018 DISTRICTS (Eight locations statewide—Feb. 17)

2018 STATE FINALS (Lawrenceville—March 3)

A few hours on a Saturday makes all the difference!

Information on volunteering is available on the Volunteer for the Program page

at www.georgiamocktrial.org.

For more information about the program, contact HSMT State Coordinator Michael Nixon

at 404-527-8779 / 800-334-6865 ext. 779 or email mocktrial@gabar.org.

Check us out on Facebook @GeorgiaMockTrial and on Twitter @GA_MockTrial!

MT_Oct17.indd 1 9/6/2017 2:55:54 PM

2017 OCTOBER 41

DOES YOUR FIRM HAVE A BRAND...?

855-LAW-HURT/855-LAW-GURU, is a legal

marketing company that specializes in branding

and marketing Personal Injury Law Firms. An

attorney referral company using 855-LAW-HURT

quickly encompassed the entire State of Florida

covering all 16 area codes. Now is the time for us

to offer this fantastic marketing tool nationwide!

We know what it takes for law firms to win in the

nation's largest cities and most competitive markets.

• Proven Vanity #’s That Work!

• Exclusivity to Your Firm per Area Code!

• 855-LAW-HURT and 855-LAW-GURU

Call Today

42 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

“¿En qué puedo ayudarle?” you ask,

surprised that you remember enough

high school Spanish to ask your potential

new client how you can help.

“Oh good! You speak Spanish!” your

client-to-be exclaims with delight, mis-

takenly believing that your impeccable

accent indicates actual language fluency.

She launches into her tale of woe. You

panic, realizing you don’t understand a

word she has said.

“Um . . . I only got as far as Spanish II,”

you respond weakly.

What are a lawyer’s obligations

when representing a client who speaks a

different language?

Pretty much the same as they are for

any other client. As with any client, com-

munication is essential to the relation-

ship. Georgia Rule of Professional Con-

duct Rule 1.4 requires a lawyer to consult

with the client about the case, to keep

the client reasonably informed and to

promptly respond to requests for infor-

mation. The rule requires a regular flow

of communication to ensure that the cli-

ent understands her options in directing

the lawyer’s actions.

If you’re lucky enough to be bilingual

none of this poses problems for you. Many

times the rest of us rely on staff or even

relatives of the client to translate conversa-

tions with a client of limited English pro-

ficiency. While such arrangements may be

the only option for office visits, the lawyer

should ensure that the client has a certi-

fied interpreter for any judicial proceed-

ing. Certified interpreters understand the

duties of confidentiality and impartiality,

and are subject to rules of professional

conduct. Take a look at the website for the

Georgia Commission on Interpreters for

more information on choosing and using

an interpreter. Additional resources are

available through the American Bar As-

sociation and the statewide website run

by Georgia’s legal services organizations,

www.georgiaadvocates.org.

While it’s great fun to show off your

less-than-fluent foreign language skills

during a Spring Break vacation to Cabo,

your clients deserve better. It’s your ob-

ligation to ensure that there is meaning-

ful communication and understanding at

each step of the process. l

Paula Frederick

General Counsel

State Bar of Georgia

[email protected]

How Do You Say “Help”?

BY PAULA FREDERICK

GBJ | Oce of the General Counsel

ISTOCK.COM/ETIAMMOS

2017 OCTOBER 43

GBJ | Attorney Discipline

Attorney Discipline

Summaries

July 13, 2017 through Sept. 5, 2017

BY JESSICA OGLESBY

Suspensions

Michael Bernard King

5581 Aspen Drive

College Park, GA 30349

Admitted to Bar 1990

On Aug. 14, 2017, the Supreme

Court of Georgia ordered that attorney

Michael Bernard King (State Bar No.

421140) receive a Public Reprimand

and a Suspension from the practice of

law with conditions. The Investigative

Panel had originally decided to impose

an Investigative Panel reprimand in this

matter, but King failed to appear to re-

ceive that sanction and failed to explain

his failure to appear, which led to the

Investigative Panel’s decision to issue a

Notice of Discipline. King was served

with the Notice of Discipline, but he

failed to file a Notice of Rejection, re-

sulting in default.

King admitted by virtue of default that

he represented a client in a personal in-

jury suit, which the trial court dismissed.

King then repeatedly failed to properly

advance the client’s appeal, including

by failing to file the requisite transcript,

resulting in the trial court’s dismissal of

the appeal and imposition of attorney

fees against King. King appealed the

dismissal of the appeal, but the Court

of Appeals dismissed that appeal for

failure to pay costs or provide sufficient

evidence of his client’s indigence. The

Investigative Panel concluded that King

had violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 3.2 of the

Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.

The maximum sanction for a violation

of Rules 1.2 and 1.3 is disbarment, while

the maximum sanction for a violation of

Rule 3.2 is a public reprimand.

In mitigation, King had no prior dis-

cipline. In aggravation, King failed to

appear to receive the Investigation Pan-

el reprimand and did not respond to the

Bar’s filings in the court. The Supreme

Court ordered a Public Reprimand, and

Suspension from the practice of law

until King appears for and receives that

reprimand, as the appropriate discipline

in this matter. Accordingly, once King

receives the Public Reprimand, he may

seek reinstatement.

John Dennis Duncan

29 Blue Ridge Drive

Newnan, GA 30265

Admitted to Bar 2009

On Aug. 28, 2017, the Supreme Court

of Georgia accepted a Petition for Vol-

untary Discipline filed by attorney John

Dennis Duncan (State Bar No. 311056)

“He who is his own lawyer

has a fool for a client.”

1303 Macy Drive

Roswell, Georgia 30076

Call (770) 993-1414

www.warrenhindslaw.com

Warren R. Hinds, P.C.

“An Attorney’s Attorney”

• Bar Complaints

• Malpractice Defense

• Ethics Consultation

44 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

for a six-month suspension with condi-

tions for reinstatement.

In State Disciplinary Board Docket

No. 6922, Duncan agreed to represent a

client in a personal injury case in Febru-

ary 2012 for a 4 percent contingent fee

He admitted that he did not adequately

communicate with the client as the case

progressed; that he settled the case with

client authority for $28,000, deposited

the settlement check in his IOLTA ac-

count on Oct. 9, 2013, disbursed $28,000

to himself as attorney fees and delivered

$2,000 to the client, advising him that

the balance had to remain in the trust

account while a Medicare lien was ne-

gotiated; and that he failed to adequate-

ly negotiate the lien. Duncan eventually

delivered the balance owed to the client

by paying $13,880 in October 2016 and

another $920 in April 2017. Later, Dun-

can reduced his contingency fee to 33

percent and refunded the difference in

three monthly payments. He admitted

he violated Rules 1.4, Rule 1.15 (I) (a),

and 1.15 (II) (b) of the Georgia Rules of

Professional Conduct.

In State Disciplinary Board Docket

No. 6984, Duncan admitted that he

agreed to represent another client in

or about February 2015, in defense of

misdemeanor battery charges in Coweta

County; that during the representation,

the client was taken into immigration

custody; that he directed the client to

retain immigration counsel; that when

he left his law firm in July 2015, he

took the client’s case with him; that in

September 2015, he appeared on the

client’s behalf at a hearing in the bat-

tery case and notified the judge that the

client was in immigration custody; and

that the judge issued a bench warrant to

ensure the client would be delivered to

Coweta County when he was released

from immigration custody. After that

time, Duncan admitted that, although

the client discharged him, he failed

to formally withdraw from the repre-

sentation, thereby violating Rules 1.4

and 1.16 (c) of the Georgia Rules of

Professional Conduct.

In mitigation, Duncan has no prior

disciplinary history and his behavior was

the result of personal and emotional dif-

ficulties, including an addiction, which

he is trying to overcome as detailed in

two sealed documents. He took full re-

sponsibility for his failings and the fact

that his clients have suffered as a result

of his conduct. Additionally, this case

also involves a timely good faith ef-

fort to make restitution or rectify the

consequences of misconduct, remorse

and a cooperative attitude toward the

disciplinary proceedings.

Duncan’s reinstatement after the six-

month suspension is conditioned on pro-

viding proof from a licensed counselor

or therapist that he is fit to practice law,

and proof that the client set forth in SDB

Docket No. 6922 has been refunded the

money as stated.

Fincourt Braxton Shelton

883 Main St.

Darby, PA 19023

Admitted to Bar 2007

In a reciprocal discipline case filed pur-

suant to Rule 9.4 (b) of the Georgia Rules

of Professional Conduct, the Supreme

Court of Georgia on Aug. 28, 2017, ac-

cepted the Report and Recommenda-

tion of the Review Panel of the State

Disciplinary Board to suspend Fincourt

Braxton Shelton (State Bar No. 771101)

from the practice of law in Georgia for

four years, with conditions for reinstate-

ment, based on a four-year disciplinary

suspension imposed by the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court.

Shelton’s Pennsylvania suspension was

based on his conduct in two unrelated

client matters. In one matter, he made

material misrepresentations in court

documents, mishandled funds that had

been entrusted to him, labored under a

significant conflict of interest, commit-

ted a breach of his fiduciary duties and

engaged in extreme incompetence. In the

other matter, Shelton persistently mis-

represented the identity of a party in filed

pleadings, acted without the consent of

his client, filed inaccurate and false docu-

ments, and disbursed funds without au-

thority to do so.

To be reinstated after the suspension,

Shelton must offer proof to the State

Bar’s Office of the General Counsel that

he has been reinstated to the practice of

DIGITAL

EDITION

THE

Download today to

enjoy single issues at

www.gabar.org/

newsandpublications/

georgiabarjournal/

www.gabar.org

JOURNAL

GEORGIA BAR

Volume 23, Number 2October 2017

From the President—

In Praise of Local Bar

Associations

Legal Tech Tips

State Bar Bike Law

Section Rolls In

A Conversation with

Cathy Cox

Uninsured Motorist

Benets in Light of

Thurman v. State Farm

JOURNAL

GEORGIA BAR

2017 OCTOBER 45

law in Pennsylvania, and the State Bar

agrees and submits a notice of compli-

ance to this Court, which will issue an

order granting or denying reinstatement.

Disbarment

Cassandre M. Galette

5020 Geranium Court

McKinney, TX 75070

Admitted to Bar 2005

On Aug. 14, 2017, the Supreme Court

of Georgia accepted the petition for

Voluntary Surrender of License of at-

torney Cassandre M. Galette (State Bar

No. 920625) for her admitted violation

of Rule 8.1 (a) of the Georgia Rules of

Professional Conduct.

Galette admits that she provided

false information to the Office of the

General Counsel concerning a griev-

ance alleging that she assisted a third

party in filing a false petition for a

temporary protective order against the

grievant and in falsely acknowledging

service of that petition—actions that ul-

timately led to the arrest and jailing of

the grievant. The State Bar had no ob-

jection, and the special master recom-

mended accepting the Petition, noting

that disbarment is appropriate where,

as here, the lawyer engages in inten-

tional conduct involving dishonesty

or submits false statements during the

disciplinary process.

Gerald W. Fudge

510 Valley Lane

Atlanta, GA 30328

Admitted to Bar 1972

On Aug. 14, 2017, the Supreme Court

of Georgia accepted the petition for

Voluntary Surrender of License of at-

torney Gerald W. Fudge (State Bar No.

279200). In his petition, Fudge, who has

been a member of the State Bar of Geor-

gia since 1972, admitted that in Febru-

ary 2016, he pled guilty to conspiracy

to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C.

§ 371, a felony, in the U.S. District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

and was sentenced to three years’ pro-

bation and restitution in the amount

of $2,150,617.32. Fudge admitted that

by virtue of his felony conviction, he

violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of the Georgia

Rules of Professional Conduct.

Public Reprimand

Lakeisha Tennille Gantt

175 Straight St.

Forsyth, GA 31029

Admitted to Bar 2005

On Aug. 28, 2017, the Supreme Court

of Georgia accepted the Petition for Vol-

untary Discipline for attorney Lakeisha

Tennille Gantt (State Bar No. 142126) and

imposed a Public Reprimand. Gantt admit-

ted to violating Rules 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of

the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.

In her petition, Gantt admitted that

in September 2007, she was retained to

represent a client in a civil matter aris-

ing from an incident where the parking

brake on an unoccupied asphalt truck

had disengaged, causing the truck to roll

across the client’s front lawn and into

her house. In August 2009, Gantt timely

filed a lawsuit, and after the defendants

answered and some initial written dis-

covery was conducted, Gantt decided to

voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit without

prejudice, knowing that it could be re-

filed. However, she admits that she did

not adequately communicate with the

client about her intent to do so or about

the actual dismissal, and that she never

filed a renewal lawsuit. Consequently,

some of the claims of the client’s minor

children were barred.

The Special Master found in mitiga-

tion no prior disciplinary history; the

absence of a selfish motive; personal

and emotional problems, which required

medical treatment and counseling, and

which may have contributed to Gantt’s

behavior; cooperation during these dis-

ciplinary proceedings; relative inexperi-

ence in the practice of law at the time of

these infractions; and good character,

integrity and reputation, as evidenced

by letters submitted from two attorneys

who know her. The Supreme Court

agreed that a Public Reprimand was

appropriate discipline. l

Jessica Oglesby

Clerk, State Disciplinary Board

State Bar of Georgia

[email protected]

N D L

Norwitch Document Laboratory

Forgeries - Handwriting - Alterations - Machine Printing - Ink Exams

Medical Record Examinations - “Xerox” Forgeries - Seminars

F. Harley Norwitch - Government Examiner, Retired

Court Qualified Scientist - 35+ years. Expert testimony given in

excess of six hundred times, including Federal and International

1 Offices in Augusta and West Palm Beach

www.QuestionedDocuments.com

Telephone: (561) 333-7804 Facsimile: (561) 795-3692

46 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | Legal Tech Tips

Photo-Scanning Apps Have

Come a Long Way

You can use photo-scanning apps to

do much more besides taking a picture

of the picture you want to scan. Some

smartphone apps that are designed

specifically for scanning or capturing

digital versions of photographic prints

can do a bit more than just take a picture

of the picture. When searching for a

portable scanning program, read its

listed set of features on its app store

page. Check out Google PhotoScan,

CamScanner and Photomyne.

Where is This Photo From?

Search Images on Google

Do you have a photo and want to know

where it came from or see where else

on the web it can be found? On your

computer, you can do a reverse search

by dragging or copying the image

into the Google URL search field in a

Google Chrome browser, then right

click on the image that appears and

click “Search Google.” Or, if you are in

www.images.google.com, click “upload

an image.” On your smartphone or

tablet, use the Chrome app to do a

search. Touch the image you want to

search to open a larger version of the

image and then press and hold the

image. In the box that appears, touch

“Search Google” for this image.

Insight Timer

insighttimer.com

Think about wellness. Incorporate a

little meditation into your hectic day.

Try Insight Timer. Available in both

iOS and Android, this app provides you

with tools to enhance sleep, relaxation

and mindfulness, and reduce anxiety.

The app provides a library of guided

meditations, 34 meditation playlists and

ambient sounds.

Be Prepared for Insurance

Claims, Take Inventory

Picture a home or business disaster? Be

prepared insurance-wise by using your

smart phone camera to catalog your

inventory, purchases and receipts. Take

a date-stamped picture of the item and

the receipt. Some property may require

a brief video with voice-over. Store the

photos and videos in the cloud for the

emergency you hope never happens.

Co-Parenting Software:

Reduce Stress, Save Money

If you practice family law, here’s a tip to

share with divorced or divorcing clients

(or other family members). Use a co-

parenting software solution to share data

and improve communication, calendar

and track custody and visitation, share

receipts and expenses and more. These apps

generally are not free, with cost increasing

depending upon features selected, but in the

long run can help you save time and money

and reduce stress and frustration. Check

out these examples: Our Family Wizard

(www.OurFamilyWizard.com), 2Houses

(www.2Houses.com) and CustodyJunction

(www.CustodyJunction.com).

BY NATALIE R. KELLY

AND MICHAEL MONAHAN

Legal Tech

TIPS

INSIGHT TIMER

2017 OCTOBER 47

No USB Plug for Charging?

Try the TV!

If you’ve settled in at the hotel after a

long day at work while traveling and

find you brought a USB wire but not

the plug, your hotel TV likely has a USB

port to plug in your device and charge

it. While on the subject of travel, you

should put together a tech emergency

kit consisting of an extra USB wire and

plug, ear buds and a thumb drive. If

you use your tablet, laptop or device for

trainings and presentations, make sure

you also include an adapter to connect

to a projector. Pack them in a small

container and leave it in your carry-on.

Zombies, Run!

zombiesrungame.com

With Halloween around the corner

we offer you this twofer: An app

that combines Zombies and fitness—

Zombies, Run! Available in Android

and iOS, this is part game, part story

and part fitness app according to the

company. It’s an app to get you running

in the real world, with the carrot (or

stick) being a horde of zombies chasing

after you—at least, according to your

headphones.

Online Notary

www.NotaryCam.com

Need a notary? Short on time? Try

www.NotaryCam.com. You or your

client can go to NotaryCam.com, upload

your document, connect to a live online

notary face-to-face on a webcam and

electronically sign your document. The

notary will verify and confirm your

identity and apply their eNotary seal.

The service costs $25 per signature

in the United States and higher for

international service.

GetHuman

gethuman.com

GetHuman is an online consumer

advocate that helps you find a customer

service number, get tips from other callers,

or makes the call for you to customer

service and helps resolve your problem.

GetHuman membership also provides a

“Lower My Bill” service that contacts your

service providers, helps identify hidden

fees, negotiates lower rates and helps you

track lower rates and savings.

Scannable

evernote.com/products/scannable

I recommend Scannable. It allows

you to use your phone’s camera

and take pictures of any document,

card or receipt and easily categorize

it by sharing it with Evernote,

or make a new contact. You can

even use it to convert a photo of

a document into a PDF, which is

great for saving documents shown

at a deposition for instance.

Nicole Leet

Gray, Rust, St. Amand, Moffett

& Brieske LLP, Atlanta

Testimonial

GETTYIMAGES.COM/SOLAR22

48 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | Law Practice Management

Nurturing Your Practice

with Law Practice

Management Resources

To get help with the nurturing of a law practice, regardless of which

stage it happens to be in, Bar members can nd ready condential aid

and support, like that of a watchful parent, through the Law Practice

Management Program.

BY NATALIE R. KELLY

From infancy, humans require nur-

turing, and it certainly remains the case

throughout life. The same is true for a

law practice. (Shout out to the 3-week

old in the waiting room whose gentle,

young cries inspired this article.) The life

phases of law practice require nurturing

to address the needs that come with the

maturity of the practice. Luckily, the Law

Practice Management Program stands

ready like a brand new parent waiting to

assist Georgia law practices with their

office management needs.

GETTYIMAGES.COM/PEOPLEIMAGES

2017 OCTOBER 49

New Practice Resources

The Law Practice Management Program

staff regularly conducts office startup

consulting. While most new lawyers

turn to the program’s resources for get-

ting a new practice off the ground, there

are also many experienced lawyers who

avail themselves of the confidential as-

sistance provided to help move from

BigLaw or another practice environment

to solo or small firm practice. Because the

now-famous Office Start Up Kit is one of

the most frequently requested items of

the program and the hard copy version of

‘THE OTHER BLUE BOOK’ is still pre-

ferred, the program does not provide the

Office Start Up Kit as a download or in

electronic format like it does for its other

practice assistance forms and checklists.

New practices are often looking for

help with what technology they should

acquire. Bar members—actually in new

and established practices—can visit with

program staff to discuss their needs and

to get implementation tips for technol-

ogy products. Lawyers and their staff are

invited to discuss and in some cases, see

demonstrations of practice matter or case

management software, general and trust

accounting systems, conflict of interest

checking programs, document assembly

tools, document management programs,

email encryption products, mobile apps

and more. The program also provides

hands-on training sessions for Fastcase

throughout the month and offers CLE

credit for the sessions.

Mid-Life Practices

For firms that have grown past the

startup and new phases of practice, the

program offers:

Associate Development and Train-

ing Tools—feedback forms, sample

orientation material and plans for

new associates.

Partnership Consulting—meetings to

address how to put together a prac-

tice, and more importantly to exam-

ine what would break it up.

Strategic Planning Assistance—ideas

surrounding when, where and how

the law firm should grow.

Compensation Planning Advice—

a review of existing models and

development of working models to

account for firm management and

growth goals.

General Management Consultations—

in-office reviews of how the firm oper-

ates and a follow up report and action

plan for overall firm improvement.

Disaster Recovery and Business

Continuity Aids—sample plans

and advice to cover the planning,

implantation and reporting stages

of disaster recovery and tools for

managing risk and protecting firm

assets and resources.

The critical growth stage of a practice

often requires more sophisticated tools.

Think about all of the advanced devic-

es and techniques required to handle a

young adolescent or to interact with a

young adult. The program’s offerings

in this area are vast. Consequently, Bar

members utilizing the resources to nur-

ture the mid-life needs of their practices

frequently request specialized tools to

help monitor and accelerate their firm’s

growth; and the program becomes a

strong source of assistance for many

practices in this way.

Aging and Retiring Practices

Even before the actual conversation is had

about winding down a practice, the Law

Practice Management Program can help

Georgia lawyers with getting there. The

program helps by referring practitioners

to helpful resources for succession plan-

ning, like the YLD Succession Planning

Pilot Project, the Senior Lawyers Section,

and helping with books and information

on retirement and estate planning for law-

yers; providing books and checklists for

the sale of a law practice which help struc-

ture the deal and account for the value of

the practice; and maintaining a detailed

checklist for closing a practice, whether

needed for the voluntary shutting of a

firm’s doors or for where there has been a

sudden death or disability forcing the clos-

ing of a practice. The end-of-life for a law

firm is a stage of practice where the Law

Practice Management Program can also be

of assistance.

To get help with the nurturing of a law

practice, regardless of which stage it hap-

pens to be in, Bar members can find ready

confidential aid and support, like that of

a watchful parent, through the Law Prac-

tice Management Program. Contact the

program for assistance with the program’s

Resource Library books and information;

sample management forms and checklists;

on-site consulting; training on Fastcase

and other office systems; Bar office visits

with program staff; and management ad-

vice via phone or email. l

Natalie R. Kelly

Director, Law Practice

Management Program

State Bar of Georgia

[email protected]

50 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | Pro Bono

Small but Mighty:

Making Pro Bono a

Win-Win as a Solo

or Small Firm Attorney

If you are a solo or small rm attorney who is thinking about taking your

rst pro bono case or looking for ways to get more out of your pro bono

practice, here are some ways to emulate your pro bono all–star colleagues.

BY SARAH BABCOCK

We all know that pro bono work is

important, no matter your practice set-

ting: big law, small law or somewhere in

between. Pro bono work is an essential

component of our commitment to the

profession of law, which reaches across

practice areas and settings.

While the commitment is the same,

pro bono work poses different and unique

challenges for solo and small firm attor-

neys. Big firm associates may be able to

count pro bono hours toward their bill-

able requirements, but for solo and small

firm lawyers juggling administrative du-

ties, networking, marketing and actually

practicing law, every hour spent on a pro

ISTOCK.COM/GUSTAVOFRAZAO

2017 OCTOBER 51

bono case is an hour taken away from

those responsibilities. If a pro bono case

suddenly needs more staff time or re-

sources than expected, solo practitioners

and small firms often don’t have the ca-

pacity to respond.

Despite these challenges, solo and small

firm attorneys remain committed to per-

forming pro bono work; according to the

American Bar Association’s most recent

report on nationwide pro bono work, solos

and small firm attorneys responding to the

survey averaged approximately 60 hours

of pro bono work in 2011.

Studies con-

ducted prior to the recession showed that

solo and small firm attorneys performed a

higher percentage of pro bono work than

any other group of practitioners.

We don’t (yet) have comprehensive

data on what drives solo and small firm

attorneys to take on pro bono matters.

But in all likelihood, those solos and

small firm lawyers have figured out

how to make their pro bono work a true

win-win, benefiting both their overall

practice and the clients served. So if you

are a solo or small firm attorney who is

thinking about taking your first pro

bono case or looking for ways to get

more out of your pro bono practice, here

are some ways to emulate your pro bono

all-star colleagues.

Choose Wisely

The need for pro bono legal services is

great, and it’s easy to feel overwhelmed.

Carefully selecting your area or areas of

focus is an essential first step for success,

especially as a solo or small firm attorney.

Pro bono representations generally fall

into three categories: (1) matters in your

wheelhouse; (2) learning opportunities;

and (3) wild cards. Matters in your wheel-

house are cases and matters that are part

Forensic Analysis Consultations

QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS ANALYSIS

(Handwriting)

Former: Police Academy Professor–FBI Academy Graduate

University Professor in Criminal Justice at the Master Program

Doctoral and Master degrees in Criminal Justice

Qualied Expert by State & Federal courts in more than 400 cases

Free Consultations—45 years of experience—English & Spanish

Tel. 787-617-2836 Email: onofrejusino@hotmail.com

of your regular fee-paying practice, for

example, a family law attorney taking a

pro bono divorce or custody case. Learn-

ing opportunities are pro bono cases that

allow the attorney to develop skills and

experience in a new area of law, with the

potential of turning that expertise into

fee-paying work. An example here is an

attorney who takes pro bono Guardian

ad Litem cases in order to develop a fee-

paying Guardian ad Litem practice (while

continuing to take those cases pro bono as

well). Finally, the “wild card” category in-

cludes attorneys who practice in one area

but develop pro bono expertise in anoth-

er, unrelated area or handle a potpourri of

pro bono cases. This category covers all

of the IP litigators who handle child ab-

ductions under the Hague Convention or

the deal attorneys who take deportation

defense and name change matters.

In general, solo and small firm attor-

neys enjoy the most success when they

stick to the first two categories of pro

bono cases. When a family law attorney

takes a custody case pro bono, for exam-

ple, she can employ all of the templates,

intake questionnaires and legal research

that she uses in fee-paying cases. That

attorney can also leverage the same ex-

pertise and relationships with opposing

counsel and judges that she relies on in

the rest of her practice. Essentially, taking

pro bono cases in your wheelhouse allows

you to treat your pro bono matters no dif-

ferently than any other case, except that

there’s no invoice to the client at the end

of the month.

On the flip side, pro bono work in a

new and different practice area is a great

opportunity for solo or small firm at-

torneys looking to develop a new skill

set. Legal services organizations like

Georgia Legal Services and Atlanta Legal

Aid can provide comprehensive training

in a variety of areas, allowing solo and

small firm attorneys to gain substantive

knowledge at little or no cost. Those or-

ganizations will also refer cases that are

well-suited for pro bono representation,

giving attorneys a chance to practice

their newly acquired skills. For example,

both Georgia Legal Services and Atlanta

Legal Aid host wills clinics throughout

the year. Attorneys looking to develop

a wills and estates practice can take a

training offered by either organization,

get practical experience at the clinic and

handle subsequent pro bono referrals to

further develop their skills.

52 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

In addition, pro bono work is a great

way for small firms to train new hires.

Smaller firms might not have in-house

training programs, but their new attor-

neys need practical experience. Pro bono

work can help bridge this gap. If a new

hire needs courtroom experience, for in-

stance, he or she could represent an abuse

survivor at a 12-month Temporary Pro-

tective Order (TPO) hearing. Several le-

gal services organizations in Georgia have

TPO programs, under which the organi-

zation provides all of the training and re-

sources needed to argue a 12-month TPO

hearing. New attorneys at small firms

gain valuable trial experience while help-

ing someone in need. And the referring

organization can provide needed support

and oversight to the new attorney, which

leads to point number two.

I offer a great deal of time and

effort in representing those who

have suffered at the hands of

violence in their home. When I am

assigned a case, I do more than

just show up in court to represent

the petitioner in the legal setting.

I like to meet with them ahead of

time and spend an hour or two

discussing their situation, all of

their options and what the court

process entails. I usually try to

spend time with them after the

court proceeding to obtain their

copies of the order, to explain fur-

ther options, and to be sure they

know they are the victor and not

the victim.

These cases matter to me

because most, if not all, of them

believe they have nowhere to turn,

and have been shamed by those

FRANCESCA A. REHAL

PRO BONO STAR STORY

around them, or are afraid to

speak to their loved ones about

their situation. They may have

preconceived notions about the

justice system. I want them to

know that there are people who

care about them.

I have suffered at the hands of

a violent person and an emotion-

ally abusive person, and this has

given me a deeper understanding

of what goes on in my clients’

minds and my experiences help

to carry them through the whole

process without judgment. This

is my calling from God to help

those that truly need it and I

believe that I am helping many

people with my abilities.

Francesca A. Rehal

Attorney at Law

Savannah, Ga.

Partner, Partner, Partner

Many solo attorneys chose solo practice

because they didn’t want a partner. When

it comes to pro bono representation, how-

ever, partnership with a legal services orga-

nization is essential for success. The attor-

neys and staff at these organizations have

resources, trainings and expertise that can

prove invaluable. They can help with things

like getting in forma pauperis affidavits

signed and filed, locating low-cost interpre-

tation resources, finding alternate contact

information for the client, navigating tricky

situations with judges or clients, and more.

Depending on your practice area, legal ser-

vices attorneys and staff are also a potential

source of fee-paying referrals.

Local legal services organizations can

also help with unsolicited requests for pro

bono assistance. Almost every lawyer has

been stopped in the grocery store by an

acquaintance with a “quick legal question”

or had an unsolicited visitor or caller ask

for pro bono help. Partnership with a legal

services organization allows you to refer

the acquaintance or caller to Georgia Le-

gal Services, Atlanta Legal Aid or any other

organization you partner with, explaining

that you only take pro bono referrals from

that organization, and would be happy

to take their case if it gets referred back

to you. For solo and small firm attorneys

who might not have the protection of a re-

ceptionist, partnership with a legal services

organization is essential for deftly avoiding

those unsolicited pro bono requests.

Prepare

Over-preparation is in most attorneys’

nature, and it is a good instinct to follow

when it comes to pro bono cases. Even

when a pro bono case is in your wheel-

house, working with low-income clients

can pose some unique challenges. Prepa-

ration is half (or more) of the battle when

it comes to effectively addressing these

challenges. Fortunately, there are many

resources available to attorneys taking on

pro bono representations.

If your pro bono case was referred by

a legal services organization, the referral

information likely included a handout on

effective representation of low-income

clients. If you prefer videos, Practising

Law Institute (www.pli.edu) has two free

training series on communicating with le-

gal services and pro bono clients. Fellow

attorneys—both those at legal aid organi-

zations and private attorneys who have

taken pro bono cases—can also provide

tips and tricks for working effectively

with low-income clients. Here are just a

few tips to start with:

Try to build rapport with the client at

the beginning of any meeting, just as

you would for a billable client. Build-

ing rapport leads to trust, which will

increase the likelihood that your client

will divulge all of the essential facts

about her case. This in turn leads to a

more successful representation.

Remember that clients in poverty have

scarce resources, as do most of their

neighbors and family. Ask your client

2017 OCTOBER 53

about the resources available to him:

Internet, phone, mail, etc. Ask which

form of communication is best for him.

Repeat new information so the client

has a chance to absorb it fully. Take

the time to ask if she has any ques-

tions for you and to answer them

thoroughly.

Remember that these clients are likely

in crisis. Follow up with them regu-

larly instead of waiting for them to

contact you. Don’t assume that your

client’s lack of responsiveness means

that she does not want your help.

Finally, don’t forget to reach out to the

Pro Bono Resource Center of the State

Bar. The center has lots of resources to

help every attorney do pro bono well,

no matter his or her practice setting.

Pro bono work may look different for

solo and small firm practitioners, but the

need for their skills and expertise is great.

The ABA has challenged all attorneys to

devote more of their pro bono efforts to

providing service to low-income people

with “everyday legal problems,” which in-

clude family law, estate planning and wills,

landlord-tenant/housing, and consumer

issues

—i.e., areas in which solo and small

firm attorneys tend to have expertise. Us-

ing the strategies above, solo and small

firm attorneys can help meet this need in

a way that is also beneficial to their overall

practice—a win-win that benefits us all. l

Sarah Babcock

Pro Bono Director

Lawyers for Equal Justice

[email protected]

Endnotes

1. Supporting Justice III: A Report on the

Pro Bono Work of America’s Lawyers,

American Bar Association Standing

Committee on Pro Bono and Public

Service, 5 (2013).

2. Leslie C. Levin, Pro Bono Publico in a

Parallel Universe: The Meaning of Pro

Bono in Solo and Small Law Firms, 37

Hofstra L. Rev. 699, 699 n. 5 (2009).

3. Supporting Justice III, supra note 1, at 12

n. 21, 34.

PRO BONO

STATE BAR OF GEORGIA

RESOURCE CENTER

probono@gabar.org • @probono_ga

We can help you do pro bono!

• Law practice management support on pro bono issues

• Professional liability insurance coverage

• Free or reduced-cost CLE programs and webinars

• Web-based training and support for pro bono cases

• Honor roll and pro bono incentives

Visit www.gabar.org / www.GeorgiaAdvocates.org

54 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | Section News

State Bar Bike Law

Section Rolls In

In June, the State Bar of Georgia’s Board of Governors approved the

creation of a new section, the Bike Law Section. The Journal sat down with

four members of the Bar, all active cyclists, who proposed the section:

Damon Elmore, Gerry Weber, Bruce Hagen and Drago Cepar Jr. Here’s what

they had to say about the section and why you should help support it.

GBJ: 

section of the Bar. What is the purpose and

what will it do?

DAMON: We proposed the creation of

the Bike Law Section (bicycle or cycling,

not motor) to serve the legal profession

and the public, by creating, interpret-

ing and advancing laws that protect,

guide and promote cyclists/cycling. Here

are two examples of what it will explore.

First, the nuances and legal arguments of

a cycling injury case can be substantially

different from standard personal injury

matters, much like distinctions have

been made with trucking, public carrier

and other injury cases. That’s on the legal

side. Second, the section will work with

our legislative team and advocacy groups

to explore new innovations and new is-

sues to address with legislation, such as

urban planning and infrastructure im-

provements. This will undoubtedly also

include exploring issues like helmet use,

bicycling under the influence, bikers tak-

ing control of lanes, sidewalk riding, bi-

(Left to right) Bruce Hagen, Gerry Weber,

Drago Cepar Jr. and Damon Elmore.

PHOTO BY SARAH I. COOLE

2017 OCTOBER 55

cycles as vehicles, “rolling” or “dead red”

stops, and other laws and issues.

GBJ: Will the section be able to support advo-

cacy groups and promote innovative laws and

policy designed around urban planning and

infrastructure improvements?

GERRY: With more and more people us-

ing non-car paths to work and play, there

is a growing need to make sure infra-

structure plans take this population into

account. There are a number of local and

statewide groups focused on making the

streets safer and more useable for bikers

and pedestrians, in both urban and rural

areas. The section will work with these

organizations so they can talk about their

issues and ideas in a language that local

and state governments understand.

GBJ: Your practice involves lawsuits and

-

lar basis. How can this section work to protect

cyclists and motorists, and improve our laws?

BRUCE: I would like to see this section

involved with education and advocacy

projects as well as continuing our efforts

on police, driver and bicyclist training.

Through better understanding of the law,

including both the rights and responsi-

bilities for people on bikes, the roads in

Georgia will become a safer place to ride.

I also believe that we can be very influ-

ential in helping our state and local gov-

ernments make meaningful infrastructure

improvements that will make sense for

their communities while making roads

safer for people both on bikes and in cars.

GBJ: 

the Bar, including the work of the Bar’s At-

torney Wellness Committee and the Lawyers

Living Well program. How do you believe this

section could support or promote that initia-

tive through its work?

Ready? Set? Go!

Distance or time? An honest answer would be both. I take advantage

of any time I can get in the saddle. When I do, I love to go as far as I

can. That’s fair, right? —Damon Elmore

Arriving or departing? As they say: “It’s not the destination—it’s the

journey.” So I would say neither. Although after a long ride or a race,

it can be good to arrive at a destination and relish in that sense of

accomplishment. —Drago Cepar Jr.

Two bikes or n+1? You can never have too many bikes. Support your

local bike shop and go buy a bike. —Bruce Hagen

Road riding or other? I bike about 7,000 miles a year. It’s how I get

groceries, get to work and meetings, and even grab a beer after

work. And when I’m on the bike, there is no hair pulling because of

traffic. —Gerry Weber

Race or chill pace? What’s the hurry? Slow down, enjoy the scenery

and have fun. We all have fast-paced lives as lawyers. When I get on

my bike, I like a slow roll. —Bruce Hagen

Ascending or descending? Anyone who knows me knows I am

allergic to hills. On top of that, I love the feeling of cresting, and then

heading down a hill or mountain swiftly. It’s a plus if I happen to pass

people on the way. —Damon Elmore

Adventure or commute? There is some adventure in every commute,

ride or race. I was recently able to take a few seconds to enjoy the

view from Sand Mountain during a 69-mile USA Cycling-sanctioned

race near Chattanooga. The weekend before that, I commuted to the

Grant Park Criterium race. You can almost have it all. —Drago Cepar Jr.

Favorite place to bike in Georgia? I have a cabin near Dahlonega,

and my favorite day is biking from the cabin to a river to see if the

trout are friendly. Sometimes you are on a road, but it’s even better

when you make a road through the woods! —Gerry Weber

Bike Talk

56 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

DRAGO: A rising tide lifts all boats. Well-

ness derived from an active lifestyle is the

same for lawyers and non-lawyers—so a

general approach is in order. It wasn’t un-

til the recession that we saw an increase

in “utility” cycling across the country—

triggered by necessity and revealing the

extra benefits along the way. Law often

lags behind social change. I think one of

the opportunities for this section will be

to examine what changes in the law may

be helpful to facilitate promotion of bik-

ing within the larger framework of active

lifestyles and ultimately increase the qual-

ity of life in our communities as well as

that of our Bar members.

GBJ: If someone is not a cyclist, or is a begin-

ner at best, why is this section for them?

BRUCE: Cyclists are human beings from

all walks of life. You may not ride, but you

know many people who do so regularly.

If you drive a car, chances are that you’ve

encountered people on bikes too. As law-

yers, let’s help lead the way to fostering

an environment where people can make

safe choices about how they choose to get

around, whether for work, recreation,

sport or just plain fun.

GBJ: During the development of the section,

there was talk about collaboration and ex-

change of ideas with other sections and com-

mittees of the Bar. What are those committees

and how will this collaboration take place?

GERRY: Of course, the Attorney Well-

ness Committee is a natural fit for the

Bike Law Section. Cycling can have an

amazing impact on the body and mind.

Some folks’ best ideas for a legal strategy

happen in the shower, but for my money,

I hop on a bike and the ideas just flow!

On the section front, there will be a lot

of intersections with the Local Govern-

ment Law Section on infrastructure, and

the Tort & Insurance Law and General

Practice & Trial Law sections on litigation

issues. As a primary mode of transporta-

tion for a growing number of people, laws

related to bikes cut across a large swath

of civil and criminal law, and almost ev-

ery section could potentially gain insight

from our members. l

Ready to join? Visit www.gabar.org > Member

Questions? Email [email protected].

PHOTO BY SARAH I. COOLE

(Left to right) Gerry Weber, Drago Cepar Jr., Bruce Hagen and Damon Elmore are all active cyclists and proposed the new Bike Law Section.

The State Bar of Georgia’s 49 sections provide newsletters,

programs and the chance to exchange ideas with other

practitioners. Section dues are very aordable, from $10-$35.

Join one {or more} today by visiting www.gabar.org > Member

Email Section Liaison Derrick Stanley at derricks@gabar.org.

BIKE

LAW

JOIN A STATE

BAR SECTION

it’s time to

The Bike Law Section will study,

review and/or initiate proposed

law, policy or legislation

promoting and protecting

cycling and cyclists, and provide

information regarding the unique

legal aspects and application

of legal principles common to

cycling and cycling advocacy.

58 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | Member Benets

One of the most common requests

received from State Bar members is help in

choosing a health insurance plan for them-

selves, their families and for their firms.

In October 2009, then-Executive Director

Cliff Brashier made this observation in his

Bar Journal article where he detailed the

long, arduous task undertaken by the Mem-

ber Benefits Committee to find a solution

and present it to the Board of Governors.

Earlier that year, the 147-member gov-

erning body selected BPC Financial (now

known as Member Benefits, Inc.) as the

recommended broker for members’ health,

dental and vision plans.

For the past eight years, we have been

able to respond to that request confidently

by directing members to the private insur-

ance exchange website built by Member

Benefits, Inc., whereupon they are able to

find the best possible plans for their indi-

vidual situations. This has been a welcome

and timely benefit for our members with

the current disruption in the health insur-

ance industry. Many of you have taken

advantage of this service and expressed

your satisfaction. I hope this article will be

welcome news to those who are not aware

of this benefit.

The State Bar’s Private Insurance Ex-

change is a multi-carrier private exchange

designed for members, their staff and de-

pendents. Available to both individuals

and employer groups, the exchange offers

a wide range of health insurance choices

and more with a consumer-friendly ap-

proach to purchasing insurance coverage.

Individuals that do not qualify for a gov-

ernment subsidy may purchase a qualified

health plan on a private exchange. Con-

sumers may view plans from many insur-

ance carriers, compare benefits and costs,

and make purchasing decisions based on

their specific health needs and budget.

If you are an employer, the employer

group solution is a particular advantage

because it enables you to offer a simple way

for your employees to shop for insurance

and other benefits by creating your own

private health exchange. With defined

contributions, you give your employees a

set amount of money to spend on benefits

and they use that money to shop for the

coverage that meets their individual needs.

So instead of offering a “one-size-fits-all”

health and benefits package, you empower

your employees to choose the combination

of coverage that’s just right for them.

Find the Private Insurance Exchange un-

der the Attorney Resources tab on the State

Bar website under Insurance Offerings (see

fig. 1). Access the website by clicking on the

image (see fig. 2). Once you enter the Pri-

vate Health Exchange, you have access to

all available benefits for individuals, families

and business (see fig. 3). Simply choose a

Member Benets:

Providing Bar Members

with a Private Insurance

Exchange for Health, Dental,

Vision and More

The State Bar’s Private Insurance Exchange is a multi-carrier private exchange designed

for members, their sta and dependents. Benets oered include medical, disability, life,

long-term care and professional liability insurance.

BY SHEILA BALDWIN

2017 OCTOBER 59

product and register by entering basic in-

formation, which will enable you to review

quotes from leading insurance providers

side by side. At this point use the deci-

sion support tool or speak with a licensed

benefits counselor dedicated to help mem-

bers of the State Bar of Georgia. Once you

make your decision, fill out and submit the

online application.

Chip Trefry, Member Benefits CEO,

has expanded the list of benefits available

on the exchange to include disability, life,

long-term care and professional liability

insurance. These products and more are

found on the homepage of the exchange

website. If you have additional questions

and are unable to find the answer on the

website, contact Member Benefits by

clicking the contact link on the top right

of the homepage, or call 800-282-8626.

The Private Insurance Exchange, a

benefit that the State Bar of Georgia ex-

tends to its members through its affiliation

with Member Benefits, Inc., is increasing

in value as the insurance market responds

to recent volatility. Heathcare.gov has an-

nounced that the 2018 Open Enrollment

Period runs from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15, 2017,

and plans sold during open enrollment

start Jan. 1, 2018. It’s best to begin your

search sooner than later, so take a minute

and register today rather than wait until

the market gets crowded at the end of the

year. We hope you will find this benefit

useful to you. Please contact me at any

time about this and other member benefits

at [email protected] or 404-526-8618. l

Sheila Baldwin

Member Benefits Coordinator

State Bar of Georgia

[email protected]

60 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | Writing Matters

Fact Statements Part II:

More than “Just the Facts”

This article addresses the importance of getting specic with your

language and the use of charts and graphs.

BY MEGAN E. BOYD

This is the second of a two-part

installment of “Writing Matters” focused

on improving statements of fact.

Get Specific

Specific language is much more persua-

sive than vague generalities. Consider the

difference in the following sentences:

Maxwell suffered terrible injuries in

the accident.

First responder James Holmes, a

20-year veteran of the Oaklawn

Fire Department, described Max-

well’s injuries as “some of the most

severe [I’ve] ever seen,” noting that

Maxwell’s right femur had “broken

through the skin by several inches”

and was “clearly visible.”

Similarly, using a party’s own testimo-

ny or writings is often more effective than

summarizing the content.

Bornwell intentionally breached the

contract.

Bornwell’s president has admitted

it breached the contract. She sent

the following email to Graphix on

May 1, 2017: “I know we agreed to

purchase 50,000 brochures, but we

ISTOCK.COM/BAONA

2017 OCTOBER 61

simply do not need as many as we

thought we would.”

An excellent example comes from Paul

Clement’s brief on behalf of Hobby Lobby

in litigation before the Supreme Court

over whether the Affordable Care Act

requires Hobby Lobby to provide certain

health care coverage. Clement sought to

show that Hobby Lobby and its owners,

the Greens, “organized their businesses

with express religious principles in mind.”

Why? Because Hobby Lobby and the

Greens argued that under the Religious

Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, they

cannot be required to provide coverage

for contraceptives when doing so violates

their religious beliefs.

But Clement does not stop with that

statement. He gives explicit examples of

ways in which the Greens’ faith guides

their operation of Hobby Lobby:

Hobby Lobby’s official statement of

purpose commits the company to

“[h]onoring the Lord in all we do by

operating the company in a manner

consistent with Biblical principles.”

The Greens operate Hobby Lobby. . .

through a management trust they cre-

ated, of which each Green is a trustee.

The Greens each signed a Statement

of Faith and a Trustee Commitment

obligating them to conduct the busi-

nesses according to their religious be-

liefs, to “honor God with all that has

been entrusted” to them, and to “use

the Green family assets to create, sup-

port, and leverage the efforts of Chris-

tian ministries.”

t t t t t

Hobby Lobby stores close on Sundays,

at a cost of millions per year, to allow

employees a day of rest. Each Christmas

and Easter, Hobby Lobby buys hun-

dreds of full-page newspaper ads invit-

ing people to “know Jesus as Lord and

Savior.” Store music features Christian

songs. Employees have cost-free access

to chaplains, spiritual counseling and

religiously themed financial courses.

t t t t t

Respondents also refrain from busi-

ness activities forbidden by their re-

ligious beliefs. For example, to avoid

promoting alcohol, Hobby Lobby does

Invoice Date

Invoice

Amount

Balance

Carried Forward

Payment

Balance

Due

January 2016 $2,000 $0 -$1,000 $1,000

February 2016 $2,000 $1,000 -$2,000 $1,000

March 2016 $2,000 $1,000 -$900 $2,100

April 2016 $2,000 $2,100 -$1,000 $3,100

May 2016 $2,000 $3,100 -$500 $4,600

June 2016 $2,000 $4,600 -$2,000 $4,600

July 2016 $2,000 $4,600 -$0 $6,600

August 2016 $2,000 $6,600 -$0 $8,600

not sell shot glasses. Hobby Lobby once

declined a liquor store’s offer to take

over one of its building leases, costing

it hundreds of thousands of dollars a

year. Similarly, Hobby Lobby does not

allow its trucks to “back-haul” beer and

so loses substantial profits by refusing

offers from distributors.

As we learn in law school, the devil is

in the details, and judges deal in specifics,

not generalities. Clement’s use of specific

statements, advertisements and business

policies undoubtedly helped persuade the

Supreme Court that the Greens exercise

their religion through Hobby Lobby.

Use Charts and Graphs

Charts and graphs are excellent ways to

bring to life certain types of information

that might otherwise “fall flat” if incorpo-

rated into paragraphs in your fact state-

ment.

These devices work particularly

well for displaying numbers, showing

overlapping events that occurred over the

passage of time and explaining relation-

ships between key actors in the litigation.

Consider the effectiveness of the fol-

lowing chart, used to explain how a

plaintiff calculated its damage amount:

62 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

Similarly, bullet or numbered points

are equally helpful in highlighting mul-

tiple pieces of related information that

might otherwise get lost in the midst of

a paragraph. Consider the effective use of

numbers in a brief Exxon filed in litigation

over the Valdez oil spill. In its statement of

facts, Exxon does not skirt responsibility

for the spill but seeks to show everything

it did post-spill to prevent future disasters:

In addition, Exxon instituted compre-

hensive remedial measures to reduce the

risk of future spills, including: (1) new

navigation policies specifying daylight-

only departures and reduced speeds in

icy conditions, limitations on deviations

from traffic lanes, and increased use of

tug escorts; (2) a technologically ad-

vanced satellite-based navigation tool; (3)

a strengthened policy requiring masters

to remain on the bridge; (4) enhanced

safety training programs; (5) revised al-

cohol policies; (6) improved monitoring

and reporting procedures; (7) random

testing for alcohol or substance abuse;

(8) an absolute prohibition against use

of alcohol by vessel officers while on a

tour of duty; (9) additional mates in port;

(10) new mandatory rest periods; and

(11) strengthened corporate environ-

mental and safety policies, a new

Safety, Environmental and Regula-

tory Department, and a $1 billion in-

dustry-wide program to improve spill

response capability.

The issue before the Supreme Court

was whether Exxon could be liable for

punitive damages after it had already

paid several billion dollars in criminal

and civil penalties. Exxon numbers (and

therefore emphasizes) the plethora of

activities it undertook to prevent future

spills, highlighting its corporate respon-

sibility to show that punitive damages

were unwarranted.

These suggestions, and those fea-

tured in the August 2017 installment of

“Writing Matters,” will help you pres-

ent your client’s story in a more thor-

ough and interesting way. l

Megan E. Boyd is an

instructor of law at Georgia

State University College of

Law, where she teaches

Lawyering: Foundations. She

is the author of numerous articles on

legal writing and co-author of Show,

Don’t Tell: Legal Writing for the Real

World. She maintains a legal writing

blog, www.ladylegalwriter.blogspot.com,

and tweets about writing at

@ladylegalwriter.

Endnotes

1. Br. For Resp’ts at 8, Burwell v. Hobby

Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___, 134 S.

Ct. 2751 (2014) (Nos. 13-354, 13-356)

(internal quotations and citations

omitted).

2. Adam L. Rosman, Visualizing the Law:

Using Charts, Diagrams, and Other

Images To Improve Legal Briefs, 63 J.

Legal Educ. 70 (Aug. 2013).

3. Br. for Pet’rs at 4, Exxon Shipping Co. v.

Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (No. 07-219)

(internal citations and quotations

omitted).

Atlanta

Athens

ICLE HAS MOVED!

CONNECT WITH ICLE

facebook.com/

iclega

@iclega

iclega.org

104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 210

Atlanta, GA 30303

678-529-6688

linkedin.com/

company/10220653

ICLE_WeMoved.indd 1 9/15/2017 10:03:03 AM

2017 OCTOBER 63

Professionalism

Committee Celebrates

25th Year of Law

School Professionalism

Orientations

The Professionalism Committee reects upon the last 25 years’

experiences while also looking toward the future.

BY NICOLE G. IANNARONE AND ROBERT ARRINGTON

At the first Orientation on Profession-

alism, then-assistant director of the Chief

Justice’s Commission on Professional-

ism Sally Lockwood told law students

and volunteer lawyer attendees that both

the State Bar’s Professionalism Commit-

tee and Chief Justice’s Commission on

Professionalism “hope that these Orien-

tations on Professionalism will become

a tradition at the law schools.” After the

Professionalism Committee completed

the 25th annual Professionalism Ori-

entations at each of the six Georgia law

schools in August, we can say that the

Professionalism Orientations have tran-

scended tradition to become part of the

foundational professional development

education of thousands of lawyers.

The dual aims Lockwood described

at the inaugural program remain: “to

demonstrate the unity among the law

schools, the organized bar, practitioners

and the judiciary in the move to raise the

GBJ | Professionalism Page

First-year law students at the University

of Georgia School of Law participate in a

breakout group.

PHOTO BY TERIE LATALA

64 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

professional aspirations of lawyers in this

state.” Each year, several dozen judges

and lawyers from every practice area do-

nate their time to underscore the impor-

tance of professionalism. From the group

leaders’ perspective, professionalism is

something they have learned through

experience, both their own when faced

with hard choices and by observing law-

yer colleagues. In both cases, they learn

from positive and negative examples and

use them to craft their identity as a pro-

fessional attorney. While law students

know they want to be a professional at-

torney, they have not yet had any experi-

ence in the law, and they look for role

models to help them identify what steps

they should take to develop a professional

identity as a lawyer. Professionalism Ori-

entations help jump start students’ pro-

fessional identity formation and equip

them with a framework for approaching

professionalism issues. The program also

introduces them to lawyers who further

offer their time to meet and talk after the

formal program concludes.

Students are not the sole learners in

the Professionalism Orientation program.

When we hear from discussion group

leaders, they tell us that the value of the

program is not what they give, but what

they get: the ability to welcome the new-

est entrants into our great profession and

learn from them. Orientation group lead-

er Jessica Jay Wood says of her experience

this year: “I got some spectacularly kind,

insightful, and wise messages today from

law students and younger attorneys who

think I’m mentoring them. Plot twist:

They are reverse-stealth-mentoring me.”

As we reflect upon the last 25 years’ ex-

periences, we are also looking toward the

future. The Professionalism Committee is

conducting a top-to-bottom review of the

entire Professionalism Orientation Pro-

gram. Our goal is to foster a deeper part-

nership with the faculties, administrators

and students at each of the Georgia law

schools. We want to ensure our model

program is current, comprehensive and

compelling. We will work with our law

school administration and student part-

ners to identify and address the issues

they find most relevant.

Last year, the Professionalism Com-

mittee’s dedicated volunteers expanded

the outreach program, in which we asked

second- and third-year students for their

feedback and suggestions on how to im-

prove the orientations. It was highly suc-

cessful, and the resulting changes were

well-received by the schools. We look

forward to expanding that program this

year, with the possibility of having se-

nior students actively participate in the

orientations to relay their personal expe-

riences dealing with many of the issues

discussed in the breakout sessions. Be-

cause professional identity formation is

so crucial to students’ development, we

are looking to expand the orientation to

include a Winter/Spring program for

second- and third-year students.

The solid foundation of the past will

guide us in our efforts to further grow and

expand the Professionalism Orientation

Program. We hope you will join us and

share your input, ideas and experiences as

we look toward the next 25 years. l

Nicole G. Iannarone

Chair, State Bar Professionalism Committee,

Assistant Clinical Professor, Investor

Advocacy Clinic



[email protected]

Robert Arrington

Vice Chair, State Bar Professionalism

Committee, Managing Partner

Arrington Owoo PC

[email protected]

Hon. Eric Richardson addresses students at

Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School.

PHOTO BY TERIE LATALA

Georgia State University College of Law students take the oath of professionalism given by

Justice David Nahmias.

PHOTO BY TERIE LATALA

2017 OCTOBER 65

2017 Law School Orientation

on Professionalism Volunteers

Atlanta’s John Marshall

Law School

Roy P. Ames

S. Kent Buis

Shiriki L. Cavitt

Antoinette S. Clarington

Willie G. Davis Jr.

David S. DeLugas

Hon. Donald R. Donovan

Robert P. Duda

Randall W. Duncan

Hassan H. Elkhalil

John D. Fichtner

Thomas E. Griner

Anthony A. Hallmark

Elizabeth A. Higgins-Brooks

Charis L. Johnson

Lilia A. Kim

Staci J. Miller

Manoj K. Mishra

Joseph G. Mitchell

Taewoo P. Nam

William D. NeSmith III

Robert E. Norman

Aisha H. Oliver-Staley

Irvan A. Pearlberg

Melvin Raines II

Timothy J. Santelli

Timothy Schwarz

Nolan M. Slifko

E. Y. Teague

R. Kyle Williams

Shaheem M. Williams

Emory University

School of Law

Silas W. Allard

Amber N. Arnette

Prof. Thomas C. Arthur

Sarah T. Babcock

Prof. Margo A. Bagley

B. Phill Bettis

Natanya H. Brooks

Jay D. Brownstein

Brandon A. Bullard

Mark G. Burnette

P. Todd Carroll

Shiriki L. Cavitt

Dean Benjamin J. Chapman

Sarah C. Cipperly

Valerie E. Cochran

Darryl B. Cohen

Lawrence A. Cooper

Prof. Nancy R. Daspit

Theodore H. Davis Jr.

Hon. Donald R. Donovan

Gregory M. Eells

Dean A. James Elliott

Jennifer G. Fernandez

Elizabeth L. Fite

Amy M. Flick

Angela R. Fox

Christina Glon

Hon. Timothy Hagan

Michelle M. Henkel

Oni A. Holley

L. R. Chester Jennings

Jason H. Kang

Payal K. Kapoor

Deborah G. Krotenberg

James T. Langford

Avery Le

Rhani M. Lott

Hon. T. David Lyles

Kevin A. Maxim

Hon. Christopher J. McFadden

Robert E. Norman

Justin L. Norman

Molly H. Parmer

Sumita Dalmia Patel

Prof. Sue Payne

Jonathan B. Pierce

Hon. James R. Puhger

Rebecca Purdom

Hon. William M. Ray II

Mark A. Rogers

Prof. Jennifer M. Romig

Dean Ethan Rosenzweig

Prof. Robert A. Schapiro

Prof. Julie R. Schwartz

Timothy Schwarz

Dr. Jessica A. Seares

Prof. Sarah M. Shalf

Dean Rita A. Sheffey

Prof. George B. Shepherd

Margaret E. Strickler

J. Darren Summerville

Catherine C. Vandenberg

Prof. Randee J. Waldman

Kirsten L. Widner

Stacy B. Williams

Keely M. Youngblood

Prof. Paul J. Zwier

Georgia State University

College of Law

Hon. Justin S. Anand

Karen E. Bain

Hon. Paul W. Bonapfel

Sandra Kaye Bowen

James E. Carlson

Kendall W. Carter

Shiriki L. Cavitt

Gene Chapman

Hon. Kimberly A. Childs

Rory S. Chumley

Isaiah D. Delemar

David S. DeLugas

Hon. Stephen Louis A. Dillard

Hon. Donald R. Donovan

Sterling P. Eaves

David H. Glass

Dan R. Gresham

Amy M. Hoffman

Hon. Stacey K. Hydrick

Prof. Nicole G. Iannarone

Prof. Kendall L. Kerew

Rachel Louise King

Hon. Cassandra Kirk

Roger F. Krause

Thomas E. Lavender

Katie K. Leonard

Hon. Leigh Martin May

Kerry E. McGrath

Hon. Carla Wong McMillian

Hon. Shukura Millender

Staci J. Miller

John R. Monroe

Amanda L. Morin

Hon. David E. Nahmias

Jody L. Peskin

Adelle Petersen

Hon. William M. Ray II

Hon. Randolph G. Rich

Hon. Brian M. Rickman

Kathryn A. Rookes

Michael N. Rubin

Claudia S. Saari

Hon. Kimberly W. Schroer

Frank B. Strickland

Hon. Wesley B. Tailor

Elizabeth V. Tanis

Michael J. Tempel

John P. Thielman

Kathleen A Wasch

Richard A. Wingate

Jessica Jay Wood

Mercer University

School of Law

Bryan O. Babcock

Hon. M. Anthony Baker

Carolyn J. Baumgarner

Leslie L. Cadle

Elizabeth Ashli Carr

Justin Allen Chin

Lisa R. Coody

Cory P. DeBord

James M. Donley

James E. Elliott Jr.

Megan A. Glimmerveen

Zandra V. Hall

Robert F. Hamilton

James W. Hays

Hon. Render M. Heard Jr.

Stephen J. Hodges

Nicole S. Holcomb

Paula E. Kapiloff

Kevin Kwashnak

Donald L. Lamberth

Virginia Robinson Magruder

David H. McCain

Rebecca C. Moody

William D. NeSmith III

Elizabeth P. O’Neal

Hon. Samuel D. Ozburn

Mary E. Tolle

Edward Spencer Tolley

Savannah Law School

Hon. Thomas L. Cole

Falen O. Cox

Charles E. Dorr

Mark G. Kelso

William H. McAbee II

Joseph D. Newman

Michael E. Silverman

Hon. Jerome J. Stenger

University of Georgia

School of Law

Doug G. Ashworth

Elizabeth D. Barwick

William D. Barwick

Hon. Eric A. Brewton

Hon. Dean C. Bucci

Scott D. Cahalan

Albert Caproni III

Walter S. Cohen

Natalie G. Cox

Hon. David P. Darden

Charles E. Dorr

Jehan Y. El-Jourbagy

Whitney L. Greene

Adam L. Hebbard

Donald E. Henderson

G. Wayne Hillis Jr.

Thomas C. Holcomb

Behrouz Kianian

David A. Kleber

John Knox Larkins III

John K. Larkins Jr.

Jean Goetz Mangan

Allison E. McCarthy

Wylencia H. Monroe

William L. Nabors Jr.

Veronica M. O’Grady

Lara Ortega

Tracy L. Rhodes

Sarah M. Stephens

Donald C. Suessmith Jr.

Henry C. Tharpe Jr.

Torin D. Togut

Tash J. Van Dora

Thomas L. Walker

C. Knox Withers

66 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

GBJ | In Memoriam

In Memoriam honors those

members of the State Bar of

Georgia who have passed

away. As we reflect upon the

memory of these members, we

are mindful of the contribu-

tions they made to the Bar.

Each generation of lawyers is

indebted to the one that

precedes it. Each of us is the

recipient of the benefits of the

learning, dedication, zeal and

standard of professional

responsibility that those who

have gone before us have

contributed to the practice of

law. We are saddened that they

are no longer in our midst, but

privileged to have known them

and to have shared their

friendship over the years.

G. MICHAEL AGNEW

Pine Mountain, Ga.

University of Georgia

School of Law (1971)

Admitted 1971

Died July 2017

WILLIAM F. BARTEE JR.

Atlanta, Ga.

Emory University School

of Law (1966)

Admitted 1965

Died July 2017

BRUCE H. BEERMAN

Sandy Springs, Ga.

University of Georgia

School of Law (1974)

Admitted 1974

Died July 2017

PAULA EVADNE BONDS

Atlanta, Ga.

Northwestern University

Pritzker School of Law

(1979)

Admitted 1981

Died July 2017

ROBERT E. MULHOLLAND

Atlanta, Ga.

Emory University School

of Law (1985)

Admitted 1985

Died August 2017

WILLIAM C. O’KELLEY

Atlanta, Ga.

Emory University School

of Law (1953)

Admitted 1952

Died July 2017

R. NATHANIEL RACKETT III

Savannah, Ga.

Antioch School of Law

(1979)

Admitted 1979

Died July 2017

WILLIAM ELIJAH

REDDICKS III

Atlanta, Ga.

Woodrow Wilson College

of Law (1980)

Admitted 1991

Died July 2017

JOSEPH EDWARD

ROSSMAN

Dublin, Ga.

Atlanta Law School (1994)

Admitted 1995

Died May 2017

CHARLES R. SMITH

Cumming, Ga.

Woodrow Wilson College

of Law (1956)

Admitted 1956

Died July 2017

JULIUS WATSON WILLIAMS

Gainesville, Ga.

Woodrow Wilson College

of Law (1985)

Admitted 1985

Died February 2017

WESLEY THEODORE WISE

Warner Robins, Ga.

Mercer University Walter

F. George School of Law

(1996)

Admitted 1996

Died June 2017

J. D. FLEMMING JR.

Atlanta, Ga.

Emory University School

of Law (1967)

Admitted 1966

Died July 2017

GORDON GRANT

GREENHUT

Decatur, Ga.

Woodrow Wilson College

of Law (1979)

Admitted 1982

Died August 2017

PEYTON S. HAWES JR.

Atlanta, Ga.

University of Virginia

School of Law (1963)

Admitted 1964

Died July 2017

LEWIS C. HORNE JR.

Atlanta, Ga.

Harvard Law School

(1976)

Admitted 1976

Died February 2017

JACKIE KLEINER

Bronx, N.Y.

New York Law School (1964)

Admitted 1964

Died July 2017

ADRIANA F. KLICH

Mechanicsburg, Pa.

Potomac School of Law

(1979)

Admitted 1979

Died August 2017

GARY S. MEINKEN

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta’s John Marshall

Law School (1984)

Admitted 1984

Died July 2017

LAWTON MILLER JR.

Macon, Ga.

University of Georgia

School of Law (1962)

Admitted 1961

Died June 2017

MORRIS E. BRASWELL

Sautee Nacoochee, Ga.

Atlanta’s John Marshall

Law School (1978)

Admitted 1978

Died February 2017

LAURENCE L.

CHRISTENSEN

Marietta, Ga.

Emory University School

of Law (1976)

Admitted 1976

Died July 2017

CHARLES RONALD CLONTS

Kennesaw, Ga.

Georgia State University

College of Law (1989)

Admitted 1989

Died May 2017

SHARON ANN COBB

Bradenton, Fla.

Emory University School

of Law (1987)

Admitted 1987

Died July 2017

JAMES J. DALY JR.

Warner Robins, Ga.

Mercer University Walter

F. George School of Law

(1974)

Admitted 1974

Died July 2017

LEIGHTON B. DEMING JR.

Cumming, Ga.

Atlanta’s John Marshall

Law School (1973)

Admitted 1974

Died July 2017

JOSHUA MICHAEL DUMAS

Woodstock, Ga.

Atlanta’s John Marshall

Law School (2013)

Admitted 2013

Died June 2017

DAVID CYRUS FARSHY

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta Law School (1978)

Admitted 1982

Died July 2017

2017 OCTOBER 67

If you were lucky

enough to be chosen

to be a law clerk

to Judge William

C. O’Kelley, you

were guaranteed a

memorable and en-

joyable clerking ex-

perience. Judge, as

we called him, ran

his courtroom and

his chambers with

intelligence, grace

and good humor,

and mentored all his

clerks throughout our legal careers. He ran happy

chambers and inspired us all with his example

as a judge and lawyer, and as a person.

Judge O’Kelley died on July 5, 2017, at age 87 af-

ter a brief illness. He virtually died “in the saddle,”

barely six weeks after his last day in the court-

room. Dying in the saddle would have pleased

this former Eagle Scout and life-long horseman

and outdoors man, who loved his fishing trips

and horses almost as much as judging. Judge

was also a devoted family man; he and his wife

Ernestine Allen O’Kelley, known as “Teeny,” had

two children, Leigh and “Bo,” and several grand-

children and great grandchildren, all of whom

he adored. He was loved by his family, his court

staff and his law clerks, and was respected and

admired by his fellow judges and lawyers.

Judge served in the U.S. Air Force after at-

tending Emory University and its School of

Law. He never forgot that he had been granted

a scholarship to Emory and was a life-long

supporter, both financially and with his time,

serving as a member of the Emory Board of

Trustees. Emory rewarded him in 2014 with its

highest alumnae distinction, the Emory Medal,

and included him in the Emory 100. While at

Emory, he joined the Sigma Chi Fraternity and

later served on the Sigma Chi Foundation as a

board member and then governor emeritus. He

was recognized as a “Significant Sig” honoree.

In 2005, his law clerks established the Judge

William C. O’Kelley Endowed Scholarship in

honor of his birthday.

Appointed to the bench by President Richard

Nixon, O’Kelley was confirmed by the Senate and

took office in October 1970. During his tenure, he

was entrusted by three Chief Justices—Burger,

Rehnquist and Roberts—to handle some of the

most sensitive special assignments and to serve

on committees involved in the administration of

the federal judicial system. He served as one of

the first members of the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Court, hearing surveillance cases dur-

ing the Iran hostage crisis. In addition, he served

on the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. He was

elected by his colleagues in the 11th Circuit as its

first representative on the Judicial Conference of

the United States, the administrative body of the

federal courts.

As a trial judge, he heard some of the most sig-

nificant cases to be tried in Atlanta courts. In Feb-

ruary 1974, Atlanta Constitution editor Reg Murphy

was kidnapped and held for two days by William

Williams. After two trials overseen by O’Kelley,

Williams was convicted and received a 40-year

jail sentence. For nearly two decades from the

1970s into the 1990s, O’Kelley oversaw the long

process of desegregating the DeKalb County

School District. He also ruled in a copyright case

of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s

1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, and a case involv-

ing the placement of the Ten Commandments

in a public place. O’Kelley took senior status in

1996, continuing to hear trial cases on a selective

basis and sitting when needed with panels of the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third, Sixth and 11th

Circuits.

We will all—his family, his court family, his law

clerks, the legal community and this country—

miss him and remember his long and faithful

service with gratitude. Godspeed, Judge, and may

there be fishing in heaven.

Elizabeth Kohn served as a law clerk to Hon. William

C. O’Kelley, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of

Texas, after graduation from law school.

A Tribute to Judge O’Kelley

by Elizabeth Kohn

68 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL 2017 OCTOBER 69

OBITUARIES

Sharon A. Cobb of Bradenton, Fla., died in July

2017. She grew up in Birmingham, Ala., where she

graduated from Birmingham Southern University.

She continued her education at Georgia State Uni-

versity, receiving her Master’s degree in English

and her J.D. at Emory University’s School of Law.

Cobb attended Emory University as a Robert W. Woodruff

fellow and wrote for the Law Review. Emory honored Cobb with

the Attorneys’ Title Guaranty Fund as well as induction into

The Order of the Coif. She served as clerk for Hon. William

Acker in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

Alabama, Birmingham Division. She then associated with Paul

Hastings before contracting her legal services for an extensive

period of time to BellSouth. Cobb also enjoyed her professorship

at Emory, instructing first-year law students in legal writing and

research. The law she practiced from day to day was a passion that

was seen by all those around her.

Robert E. “Mully” Mulholland died in August

2017. He was born in February 1957 in Denville,

N.J., and grew up in Lake Valhalla, Montville, N.J.

After receiving his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees

from Catholic University in Washington, D.C., he

received his J.D. from Emory University School of

Law. He was the founding member of Mulholland & Sutlive, LLC.

Before starting his firm, he was a litigator with several of the most

prominent insurance defense firms in the southeast, and started

a plaintiff’s practice. Before becoming an attorney, Mulholland

worked as a social worker. He credited the experience of being the

primary advocate for these patients as the main reason he became

a forceful champion for catastrophically injured individuals in his

practice.

During his career, Mulholland was a member of the State Bar

of Georgia, the American Bar Association, the Georgia Trial

Lawyers Association, the Southern Trial Lawyers Association,

the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the American Associa-

tion for Justice. He was admitted to practice in the U.S. District

Court for the Northern and Middle Districts of Georgia, and the

11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in all Georgia trial courts and the

Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of Georgia. He was also

admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.

His loyalty, integrity and generosity to others in need were

well known. Mulholland was sober for more than 21 years, dur-

ing which he dedicated his time to helping others gain sobriety.

He touched hundreds of people in his work and personal life,

leaving them better for having known him and setting the stan-

dard for others to follow. His profound impact on others cannot

be overstated. He lived his life in sober appreciation for the gifts

he was given. He shared that appreciation in his actions with

all who were fortunate enough to know and love him. In lieu

of flowers, donations may be made to the State Bar of Georgia

Lawyers’ Assistance Program. To do so, please contact Pauline

Childress at [email protected]. l

Memorial Gifts are a meaningful way to honor

a loved one. The Georgia Bar Foundation

furnishes the Georgia Bar Journal with

memorials to honor deceased members of the

State Bar of Georgia. Memorial Contributions

may be sent to the Georgia Bar Foundation,

104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 610, Atlanta,

GA 30303, stating in whose memory they are

made. The Foundation will notify the family

of the deceased of the gift and the name of the

donor. Contributions are tax deductible. Unless

otherwise directed by the donor, In Memoriam

Contributions will be used for Fellows programs

of the Georgia Bar Foundation.

Memorial Gifts

68 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL 2017 OCTOBER 69

OCTOBER NOVEMBER

17 ICLE: Beginning Lawyers Program

Statewide Satellite Rebroadcast | 6 CLE

19 ICLE: Succeeding in Family Law

Hearings and Trials

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

19 ICLE: 23rd Annual U.S. Supreme Court

Update

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

20 ICLE: 33rd Annual Technology Law

Institute

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

20 ICLE: 24th Annual Securities Litigation

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

20 ICLE: Advanced Health Care Law

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

26 ICLE: Adult Guardianship

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

26-27 ICLE: 36th Annual Business Law Institute

Atlanta, Ga. | 12 CLE

27 ICLE: Trial Advocacy

Statewide Satellite Broadcast | 6 CLE

27 ICLE: Expert Testimony in Georgia

Atlanta, Savannah and Tifton, Ga. | 6 CLE

31 ICLE: From the Nixon White House to

Trump Tower

Atlanta, Ga. | 3 CLE

GBJ | CLE Calendar

1 ICLE: Commercial Real Estate

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

2 ICLE: Real Property Foreclosure

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

2 ICLE: Trial Advocacy

Atlanta, Ga., and Statewide Satellite | 6 CLE

2-4 ICLE: 33rd Annual Medical Malpractice

Liability Institute

Amelia Island, Fla. | 12 CLE

3 ICLE: Milich on Criminal Evidence

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

9 ICLE: Litigation Under 42 Section 1983

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

9 ICLE: Adult Guardianship

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

9 ICLE: Trial Advocacy—Rebroadcast

Atlanta, Ga., and Statewide Satellite | 6 CLE

10 ICLE: Keep It Short and Simple (KISS)

Atlanta, Ga. | 7 CLE

10 ICLE: Basic Fiduciary Practice 201

Macon, Ga. | 6 CLE

10 ICLE: Recent Developments in Georgia Law

Atlanta, Ga., and Statewide Satellite | 6 CLE

16 ICLE: VA Accreditation

Atlanta, Ga. | 6.5 CLE

16 ICLE: Recent Developments in Georgia

Law—Rebroadcast

Atlanta, Ga., and Statewide Satellite | 6 CLE

17 ICLE: Contract Litigation

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

30-DEC 1 ICLE: Defense of Drinking Drivers Institute

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

70 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL 2017 OCTOBER 71

DECEMBER

1 ICLE: 47th Annual Employment Law Institute

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

1 ICLE: AAML Georgia Chapter

Family Law Seminar

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

1 ICLE: Professionalism, Ethics

and Malpractice

Atlanta, Ga., and Statewide Satellite | 3 CLE

6 ICLE: Advanced Storytelling

and Persuasion for Lawyers

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

6 ICLE: Update on Georgia Law

Augusta, Ga. | 6 CLE

7 ICLE: Health Care Fraud Institute

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

7 ICLE: Professionalism, Ethics and

Malpractice—Rebroadcast

Atlanta, Ga., and Statewide Satellite | 3 CLE

7-8 ICLE: Corporate Counsel Institute

Atlanta, Ga. | 12 CLE

8 ICLE: ADR Institute and Neutrals Conference

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

13 ICLE: 9th Annual Georgia and the Second

Amendment

Atlanta, Ga. | 4 CLE

14 ICLE: Partnership Audit Update

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

14-15 ICLE: Consumer and Business Bankruptcy

Greensboro/Lake Oconee, Ga. | 7 CLE

15 ICLE: Finance for Lawyers

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

20 ICLE: The New Negotiation Advantage

Atlanta, Ga. | 6 CLE

Proposed Amendments to the

Uniform Rules for Superior Court

At its business meeting on July 26, 2017, the Council of Su-

perior Court Judges approved proposed amendments to Uni-

form Superior Court Rules 2, 18, 21, 24, and 48. A copy of the

proposed amendments may be found at the Council’s website at

http://georgiasuperiorcourts.org.

Note: To verify a course that you do not see listed, please call the CLE Department at 404-

527-8710. Also, ICLE seminars only list total CLE hours. For a breakdown, call 678-529-6688.

For ICLE seminar locations, please visit www.iclega.org.

GBJ | Notice

Should you have any comments on the proposed changes,

please submit them in writing to the Council of Superior Court

Judges at 18 Capitol Square, Suite 104, Atlanta, Georgia 30334

or fax them to 404-651-8626. To be considered, comments must

be received by Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2018.

70 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL 2017 OCTOBER 71

Property/Rentals/Office Space

Sandy Springs Law Building for Sale. Beautifully furnished

6579 square foot law building for sale including: two beautiful

and spacious conference rooms; law library; two private en-

trances and reception areas; abundant free parking; two file/

work rooms; storage room; break room adjacent to kitchen;

security system. This brick law building overlooks a pond and

is in a great location directly across the street from the North

Springs MARTA Station; easy access to I-285 and GA 400; and

close to Perimeter Mall, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, etc. Call

770-396-3200 x24 for more information.

Prime Buckhead Peachtree Offices for Rent—Brand

new, award-winning, high tech Class A offices on glass in

new Peachtree Tower. Client wow factor. Peachtree views.

Concierge service, valet parking, three restaurants, across

from Phipps Plaza. Support staff. Share with other former

big firm lawyers. Referral work with opportunities. Contact:

[email protected].

CLASS “A” Office Midtown Atlanta. Two furnished offices

(one with window) in prestigious Four Seasons Hotel office

tower on 14th Street in midtown Atlanta. Use of intranet, break/

copy, waiting, and conference rooms included. $2,500/$1,250

per month. Call 404-888-3740 or email [email protected].

Practice Assistance

Estate and Elder Law Attorneys—Generate immediate cash

for your senior or terminally ill clients by negotiating the sale of

their existing life insurance policies. Whitestone Settlements,

LLC, is a licensed life settlement broker based in Roswell, and

we can guide you and your clients through the life settlement

process. For additional information regarding how life settle-

ments can benefit your clients, or for an evaluation of an exist-

ing case, please contact Whitestone Settlements at 770-676-

6488 or [email protected].

Growing general practice Florida law firm seeks solo prac-

titioners or small law firms in Atlanta and/or Savannah inter-

ested in of counsel / partnership relationships, possibly sharing

some expenses and bidding on contracts. No interest in your

clients or income. Please email [email protected].

GBJ | Classied Resources

1. Publication Title 2. Publication Number 3. Filing Date

4. Issue Frequency 5. Number of Issues Published Annually 6. Annual Subscription Price

8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher (Not printer)

9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor (Do not leave blank)

Publisher (Name and complete mailing address)

Editor (Name and complete mailing address)

Managing Editor (Name and complete mailing address)

10. Owner (Do not leave blank. If the publication is owned by a corporation, give the name and address of the corporation immediately followed by the

names and addresses of all stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of the total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, give the

names and addresses of the individual owners. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those of

each individual owner. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, give its name and address.)

11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or

Other Securities. If none, check box

PS Form 3526, July 2014 [Page 1 of 4 (see instructions page 4)] PSN: 7530-01-000-9931 PRIVACY NOTICE: See our privacy policy on www.usps.com.

None

7. Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication (Not printer) (Street, city, county, state, and ZIP+4

)

Contact Person

Telephone (Include area code)

Full Name Complete Mailing Address

Complete Mailing AddressFull Name

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation

(All Periodicals Publications Except Requester Publications)

12. Tax Status (For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at nonprofit rates) (Check one)

Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months

Has Changed During Preceding 12 Months (Publisher must submit explanation of change with this statement)

The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes:

Georgia

Bar Journal

0 2 1 7

5 6 0

9/14/17

Bi-monthly

7 $36

State Bar of Georgia Communications Department

104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 100, Atlanta, Fulton Co., GA 30303-2743

Sarah Coole

404-527-8791

State

Bar of Georgia

104

Marietta St. NW, Suite 100, Atlanta, Fulton Co., GA 30303-2743

State

Bar of Georgia

104

Marietta St. NW, Suite 100, Fulton Co., GA 30303-2743

Bridgette

Eckerson

Mozley,

Finlayson & Loggins LLP

One

Premier Plaza, Suite 900, 5605 Glenridge Dr., Atlanta, GA 30342

Sarah

I. Coole, Director of Communications

State

Bar of Georgia

104

Marietta St. NW, Suite 100, Atlanta, Fulton Co., GA 30303-2743

State Bar of Georgia 104 Marietta St. NW, Atlanta, GA 30303-2743

■

PS Form 3526, July 2014 (Page 2 of 4)

Extent and Nature of Circulation

Average No. Copies

Each Issue During

Preceding 12 Months

No. Copies of Single

Issue Published

Nearest to Filing Date

13. Publication Title

15.

14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below

b. Paid

Circulation

(By Mail

and

Outside

the Mail)

d. Free or

Nominal

Rate

Distribution

(By Mail

and

Outside

the Mail)

a. Total Number of Copies (Net press run)

Mailed In-County Paid Subscriptions Stated on PS Form 3541 (Include paid

distribution above nominal rate, advertiser’s proof copies, and exchange copies)

Mailed Outside-County Paid Subscriptions Stated on PS Form 3541 (Include paid

distribution above nominal rate, advertiser’s proof copies, and exchange copies)

(1)

(2)

(4)

Paid Distribution by Other Classes of Mail Through the USPS

(e.g., First-Class Mail

)

Paid Distribution Outside the Mails Including Sales Through Dealers and Carriers,

Street Vendors, Counter Sales, and Other Paid Distribution Outside USPS

(3)

Free or Nominal Rate In-County Copies Included on PS Form 3541

Free or Nominal Rate Outside-County Copies included on PS Form 3541

(1)

(2)

(4)

Free or Nominal Rate Distribution Outside the Mail (Carriers or other means)

Free or Nominal Rate Copies Mailed at Other Classes Through the USPS

(e.g., First-Class Mail)

(3)

c. Total Paid Distribution [Sum of 15b (1), (2), (3), and (4)]

Total Distribution (Sum of 15c and 15e)f.

Total Free or Nominal Rate Distribution (Sum of 15d (1), (2), (3) and (4))e.

Copies not Distributed (See Instructions to Publishers #4 (page #3))g.

Total (Sum of 15f and g)h.

Percent Paid

(15c divided by 15f times 100)

* If you are claiming electronic copies, go to line 16 on page 3. If you are not claiming electronic copies, skip to line 17 on page 3.

Georgia Bar Journal

August

2017

27,569 31,709

26,789 31,006

0 0

26,789 31,006

0 0

241 267

95 198

336 465

27,125 31,471

67 8

27,192 31,479

98.8 98.5

PS Form 3526, July 2014 (Page 3 of 4)

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation

(All Periodicals Publications Except Requester Publications)

Average No. Copies

Each Issue During

Preceding 12 Months

No. Copies of Single

Issue Published

Nearest to Filing Date

16. Electronic Copy Circulation

a. Paid Electronic Copies

I certify that 50% of all my distributed copies (electronic and print) are paid above a nominal price.

I certify that all information furnished on this form is true and complete. I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading information on this form

or who omits material or information requested on the form may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonment) and/or civil sanctions

(including civil penalties).

18. Signature and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner

Date

If the publication is a general publication, publication of this statement is required. Will be printed

in the ________________________ issue of this publication.

17. Publication of Statement of Ownership

Publication not required.

b. Total Paid Print Copies (Line 15c) + Paid Electronic Copies (Line 16a)

c. Total Print Distribution (Line 15f) + Paid Electronic Copies (Line 16a)

d. Percent Paid (Both Print & Electronic Copies) (16b divided by 16c Í 100)

PRIVACY NOTICE: See our privacy policy on www.usps.com.

October 2017

9/26/17

72 GEORGIA BAR JOURNAL

Advertisers

Index

Are You

Attracting

the Right

Audience for

Your Services?

Advertisers are discovering a fact well

known to Georgia lawyers. If you have

something to communicate to the

lawyers in the state, be sure that it is

published in the

Georgia Bar Journal

GBJ | Classied Resources

ISTOCK.COM/ALEXANDRAGL1

Contact Stephanie Wilson at 404-527-8792

or [email protected].

Position Wanted

Managing Attorney—In-town firm seeks experienced attor-

ney to assist in overseeing the management of cases in litiga-

tion. Ideal candidate will have significant experience in civil lit-

igation. Collegial work environment, stable firm, benefits. All

replies confidential. Please send resume to: [email protected].

Brennan, Wasden & Painter LLC is seeking attorneys to as-

sist with its professional liability and business litigation practice

groups in both the Savannah and Augusta offices. Those with

deposition and courtroom experience will receive preference.

Georgia Bar required. Please submit a cover letter and resume

to Wiley Wasden III at [email protected].

PI Associate Attorney—Personal injury law firm is seeking

a junior associate in the Jacksonville, Fla., area with 0-5 years

of PI experience for entry level personal injury position. En-

ergetic self-starters with great written and verbal communica-

tion skills is a must. If you are highly motivated to do great

lawyering for your clients, aren’t afraid to pay your dues and

want excellent professional development and earnings poten-

tial, then send detailed cover letter (explaining your desire to

represent the injured and your willingness to pay your dues)

along with resume AND references to [email protected].

If you are not serious about your legal career and willing to pay

your dues, then do not apply.

41 855 Law Hurt

39 Emory University School of Law

1 Member Benefits, Inc.

13 Mitchell Kaye Valuation

45 Norwitch Document Laboratory

51 Onofre Jusino

43 Warren R. Hinds, P.C.

Get Published

Earn CLE Credit

The Editorial Board of the Georgia Bar

Journal is in regular need of scholarly

legal articles to print in the Journal.

Earn CLE credit, see your name in

print and help the legal community

by submitting an article today!

Submit articles to Sarah I. Coole

Director of Communications

[email protected] | 404-527-8791

104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30303

JOURNAL

GEORGIA BAR

www.GeorgiaLHL.org

GEORGIA LAWYERS

HELPING LAWYERS

Georgia Lawyers Helping Lawyers (LHL) is a new

condential peer-to-peer program that will provide

colleagues who are suering from stress, depression,

addiction or other personal issues in their lives, with a

fellow Bar member to be there, listen and help.

The program is seeking not only peer volunteers who have

experienced particular mental health or substance use

issues, but also those who have experience helping others

or just have an interest in extending a helping hand.

For more information, visit: