On Tuesday, September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated a default judgment against attorney Craig S. Bonnell and remanded his disciplinary case back to the Special Master for a hearing on the merits. The case involves allegations that Bonnell violated several Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (GRPC) in connection with three separate client matters.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Craig S. Bonnell,” with case no. S25Y0965.
Bonnell was initially found in default by Special Master Kalki Yalamanchili, leading to the conclusion that he had admitted to violating Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(I)(c), and 1.16(d) of the GRPC. These violations carry potential sanctions ranging from a public reprimand to disbarment. The Special Master had recommended a public reprimand.
However, the State Disciplinary Review Board reviewed the Special Master’s report and recommendation, concluding that the default judgment was an abuse of discretion. The Review Board recommended that the Supreme Court vacate the default and remand the case for a full hearing. The Supreme Court agreed with the Review Board’s assessment.
The disciplinary proceedings against Bonnell originated from a Formal Complaint filed by the State Bar on July 14, 2023, which was amended on July 18, 2023. The complaint detailed allegations across three State Disciplinary Board Docket (SDBD) numbers: 7495, 7649, and 7650.
In SDBD No. 7495, the State Bar alleged that Bonnell failed to perfect service of a Petition for Appointment of an Emergency Conservator, neglected to respond to client requests for information, did not provide a detailed bill or accounting despite repeated requests, and failed to return the client’s file after termination of representation.
SDBD No. 7649 involved allegations that Bonnell, representing a client in a criminal prosecution, inadequately communicated with the client, failed to respond to information requests from the client’s daughter, and did not sufficiently explain legal proceedings to enable the client to make informed decisions.
In SDBD No. 7650, the State Bar claimed Bonnell failed to communicate with a client in a criminal matter, did not respond to the client’s requests for updates, and failed to inform the client about plea discussions with the prosecutor.
Bonnell was served with the Formal Complaint and Amended Formal Complaint on August 1, 2023. He filed an answer on December 12, 2023, admitting some factual allegations but denying any rule violations. On January 12, 2024, Bonnell filed an amended response, retracting some prior admissions and requesting dismissal of SDBD Nos. 7650 and 7495.
Bonnell sought an extension of time, citing a serious automobile accident on August 15, 2023. The State Bar argued that Bonnell was in default because he had not responded within 30 days of service. Bonnell then filed a motion to open default, claiming meritorious defenses. He included a notice of leave of absence and an affidavit detailing his injuries, along with exhibits supporting his defenses, such as an affidavit from a court clerk stating that the Petition for Appointment of an Emergency Conservator was properly served.
The State Bar acknowledged the court’s preference for deciding cases on their merits and conceded that the Special Master had the discretion to open the default. However, on August 22, 2024, the Special Master declared Bonnell in default and denied his motion to open it, citing the untimely filing of his answer and motion.
Bonnell moved for reconsideration, arguing that he had demonstrated a meritorious defense. The Special Master denied this motion. The Review Board, however, found that the Special Master’s entry of default judgment was an abuse of discretion, noting that the State Bar had not formally moved for default, initially agreed that default should be opened, and set a hearing date without entering a default judgment.
The Supreme Court emphasized its preference for deciding disciplinary cases on their merits, especially when the attorney has cooperated and participated in the proceedings. The court also noted that OCGA § 9-11-55(b), which governs the opening of defaults, applies in disciplinary proceedings and should be liberally applied.
The Court found the timing of the default judgment problematic, given Bonnell’s participation in the process. They concluded that the Special Master abused his discretion in denying Bonnell’s motion to open default, considering the evidence of Bonnell’s automobile accident and the State Bar’s initial concession. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Special Master for a decision on the merits.
According to Avvo.com, Mr. Bonnell is a criminal defense attorney. He acquired his law license in Georgia in 2001.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
