Legal Opinion

In the Matter of Haupt

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided November 23, 1982No. Supreme Court Disciplinary 167PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent, a Savannah attorney, was found guilty of violating State Bar Rule, Standard 65, which provides: “A lawyer shall not commingle his client’s funds with his own and shall not fail to account for trust property, including money and interest paid on the client’s money, if any, held in a fiduciary capacity. A violation of this standard may be punished by disbarment.” Respondent représented Migchelbrink in a domestic relations matter. Migchelbrink entrusted respondent with $6,000 to be used in a settlement with Migchelbrink’s ex-wife. However, a settlement was not reached, and on April…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In the Matter of DowdySupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
  2. In Re KennedySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1970
  3. State Bar of Michigan v. BlockMichigan Supreme Court · 1970
  4. In Matter of BarronSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. KupecWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
  2. In Matter of Robert A. MeierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1986
  3. In Re TaylorSupreme Court of Georgia · 2009
  4. Haupt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2008
  5. In the Matter of KlepakSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API