context: While we agree with the special master that Standards 44 and 68 have been violated by respondent and that violation of Standard 44 is punishable by disbarment, we do not believe that disbarment is the appropriate level of discipline for the violation in this case. We note that we previously have suspended attorneys from the practice of law for a single violation of Standard 44 and a failure to respond to the disciplinary process.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.parenthetical: disbarred for violation of Standards 44 and 68, and disbarment rendered moot a second disciplinary action seeking an emergency suspension due to respondent's indictment on felony charges
citation_a.sentence: But see In re Keeble, 271 Ga. 623 (523 SE2d 563) (1999) (disbarred for violation of Standards 44 and 68, and disbarment rendered moot a second disciplinary action seeking an emergency suspension due to respondent’s indictment on felony charges); In re Smith, 271 Ga. 432 (520 SE2d 903) (1999) (disbarred for violation of Standards 44 and 68); In re Woodard, 270 Ga. 891 (515 SE2d 147) (1999) (disbarred for violation of Standards 22, 44, and 68).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: six-month suspension for violation of Standards 21, 44, and 68
citation_b.sentence: See also In the Matter of Voss, 272 Ga. 9 (525 SE2d 89) (2000) (18-month suspension for violation of Standards 22, 44, and 68); In re Gardner, 265 Ga. 482 (458 SE2d 355) (1995) (six-month suspension with conditional reinstatement for violation of Standards 22, 44, and 68); In re Kendall, 260 Ga. 767 (400 SE2d 13) (1991) (six-month suspension for violation of Standards 21, 44, and 68); In re Roberts, 257 Ga. 721 (363 SE2d 256) (1988) (six-month suspension for violation of Standards 22, 44, and 68).