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: see
citation_a.parenthetical: indefinite suspension until Benning, who had no prior disciplinary history, responds to disciplinary authorities
citation_a.sentence: See In re Benning, 270 Ga. 135 (508 SE2d 660) (1998) (indefinite suspension until Benning, who had no prior disciplinary history, responds to disciplinary authorities); In re Cole man, 266 Ga. 652 (472 SE2d 841) (1996) (six-month suspension with conditional reinstatement); In re Shearouse, 264 Ga. 497 (448 SE2d 202) (1994) (one-year suspension with conditional reinstatement); In re Carmichael, 258 Ga. 209 (367 SE2d 549) (1988) (90-day suspension and public reprimand for violation of Standards 44 and 68).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.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_b.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).