In the Matter of Amber Cecile Saunders

FINAL COPY




        S18Y1159. IN THE MATTER OF AMBER CECILE SAUNDERS.

       PER CURIAM.

       This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Petition for Voluntary

Discipline filed by Amber Cecile Saunders (State Bar No. 827587), filed in

March 2018, before the issuance of a formal complaint. See Bar Rule 4-227 (b)

(2).1 Saunders, who was admitted to the Bar in 2013, admits that her conversion

of client funds for her own personal use violated Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II)

(b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d)

and agrees to a suspension of up to 12 months. Twelve months is the appropriate

sanction in the light of mitigating circumstances.

       In her petition, Saunders explains the circumstances leading up to her

       1
         On January 12, 2018, this Court entered an order amending Part IV of the Rules and
Regulations for the Organization and Government of the State Bar of Georgia (“Bar Rules”),
including Bar Rule 4-102 (d), which contains the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The
amendments were effective July 1, 2018, with certain exceptions not relevant here. The order also
provided that “the former rules shall continue to apply to disciplinary proceedings commenced
before July 1, 2018”     such as this proceeding     “provided that, after July 1, 2018, the State
Disciplinary Board shall perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Investigative Panel
under the former rules, and the State Disciplinary Review Board shall perform the functions and
exercise the powers of the Review Panel under the former rules.”
misuse of the client funds. She explained that her boyfriend, with whom she

shared an apartment, had an emotional downward spiral and failed to pay his

portion of the expenses. Saunders, who had practiced on her own for less than

a year, was unable to meet the couple’s shared financial obligations, her credit

was destroyed, and her car was repossessed. Her boyfriend then became abusive,

causing Saunders to leave the apartment with only the clothes on her back and

to give up her office space so that he would be unable to find her. Then in 2015,

Saunders obtained $26,283.50 in an arbitration proceeding on behalf of an

incarcerated client. She used the portion of the funds to which she was entitled

as her fee to purchase a car, but the car broke down. Because Saunders was too

embarrassed to seek help, she converted the client’s funds for her own personal

use to recover from the financial challenges brought on by her former

relationship.

      In mitigation, Saunders states that the client has been repaid in full; she

has no prior disciplinary history; she cooperated with the disciplinary process

by submitting a detailed letter of her misconduct to the Investigative Panel

member assigned to the case; her actions were due to extreme emotional distress

stemming from domestic violence; she has undergone counseling to rebuild her

                                       2
self-esteem to avoid similar problems in the future; she otherwise has good

character and reputation as shown by letters of support from the legal

community; and she is remorseful.

       In its response, the State Bar does not dispute the facts presented by

Saunders and confirms that the client was repaid, although the State Bar notes

that the client had to wait a year for the funds. The State Bar argues that

Saunders’s conduct would support the aggravating factors of dishonesty and

selfish motive, and agrees with the mitigating factors listed by Saunders.2 See

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions §§ 9.22 and 9.32; In the Matter

of Morse, 

 (

) (1996). The State argues that a

suspension of 12 to 18 months would best serve the interests of the public and

the Bar, and Saunders replied that she would voluntarily accept up to a 12-

month suspension.

       Having reviewed the filings in this case, we find that a 12-month


       2
          The State Bar also argues that there is an additional mitigating factor        Saunders’s
inexperience in the practice of law. But inexperience in the practice of law is not mitigating; even
a first-year law student should understand that conversion of client funds for personal use is
impermissible. Cf. In the Matter of Jones, 

 (2) n.8 (

) (2013) (“Whether
a lawyer has been practicing for thirty years, or only for a few days, he ought to know that an
attorney should not smuggle contraband to a client in jail. This is not the sort of case in which
experience in the practice of law has any relevance to the misconduct.”).

                                                 3
suspension is appropriate and is consistent with the sanctions imposed in similar

cases involving the misuse of client funds. See, e.g., In the Matter of Lang, 

 (

) (2013) (accepting petition for voluntary discipline and

imposing 12-month suspension where lawyer mishandled client funds); In the

Matter of Carragher, 

 (

) (2011) (imposing 12-month

suspension where lawyer mishandled client funds). Accordingly, it is hereby

ordered that Amber Cecile Saunders be suspended from the practice of law in

the State of Georgia for a period of 12 months, effective as of the date of this

opinion. Saunders is reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

      Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Twelve-month suspension. All

the Justices concur.




                                       4
                      Decided December 10, 2018.

     Suspension.

     R. Gary Spencer, for Saunders.

     Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman,

Wolanda R. Shelton, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of

Georgia.




                                      5