On Tuesday, November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated a disbarment recommendation against attorney Herald J.A. Alexander and remanded the case for a hearing on its merits. The decision stems from a disciplinary matter brought by the State Bar of Georgia against Alexander, alleging violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Herald J.A. Alexander,” with case no. S525Y1085.
The State Bar’s formal complaint accused Alexander of soliciting $200,000 from a long-term client under false pretenses and failing to return the funds, violating Rules 1.8(a) and 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.8(a) carries a maximum penalty of a public reprimand, while a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) can result in disbarment.
The case initially proceeded with the appointment of a Special Master, Patrick H. Head, by the Supreme Court on April 9, 2024, following the State Bar’s filing of a formal complaint and petition. However, a procedural issue arose when Alexander filed his response to the complaint one day late. He had mistakenly filed the answer with the Supreme Court’s docket on July 2, 2024, after receiving an extension until that date. The following morning, the Clerk’s Office notified both Alexander and the State Bar that the filing was made through the incorrect system. Alexander then refiled his answer through the State Bar’s e-file system on July 3.
Subsequently, the Special Master notified Alexander that he appeared to be in default due to the late filing. The State Bar then filed a formal motion for default on July 31, 2024. Alexander responded with a motion seeking to recognize August 30, 2024, as the service date for the State Bar’s motion, claiming he did not receive it until then due to postal service delays. The Special Master rejected Alexander’s motion and granted the State Bar’s motion for default.
A hearing was then held to determine aggravating and mitigating factors, despite Alexander’s objection that he was deprived of the opportunity to respond to the motion for default. During the hearing, Alexander invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in response to many questions regarding the facts of the case.
Based on the default, the Special Master recommended disbarment. Alexander sought review by the State Disciplinary Review Board, which upheld the default and adopted the Special Master’s recommendation. Alexander then filed exceptions with the Supreme Court, challenging the default ruling.
The Supreme Court found that the Special Master abused his discretion in granting the motion for default. The Court emphasized a preference for deciding disciplinary cases on their merits, particularly when the attorney has attempted to cooperate and participate in the proceedings. The Court noted that Alexander did file his answer by the due date, albeit incorrectly, and promptly attempted to rectify the error. The Court also pointed out that Bar rules do not automatically place a case in default for a late answer.
Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Special Master’s order granting the motion for default and the subsequent recommendation of disbarment. The case has been remanded to the Special Master for a hearing on the merits of the allegations against Alexander.
According to Avvo.com, Mr. Alexander is an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia. He acquired his law license in Georgia in 1983.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
