On Wednesday, August 16, 2023, the Supreme Court of Georgia remanded the matter of attorney Ramon David Sammons Jr. to the special master with the direction that the same decides the merits of the case in accordance with the applicable rules and law.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Ramon David Sammons Jr.,” with case no. S23Y0743.

The charges cited Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, and 5.5 which states:

A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence in representation.

A Lawyer shall reasonably communicate with the client.

A Lawyer shall not engage in the unauthorized practice of law.

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.

According to the filing, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the disciplinary case of attorney Ramon David Sammons Jr., in which the revised findings from the State Disciplinary Review Board were considered. The case revolved around alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by Sammons Jr. The formal complaint against him arose from his representation of an elderly client and her daughter in a personal injury lawsuit against a nursing home. The accusations encompassed Sammons’s repeated inactivity, misleading statements, breakdowns in communication, and eventual abandonment of the case.

The filing states:

“The formal complaint alleged that Sammons violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, and 5.5 during the course of his representation of an elderly client and her daughter in a personal injury matter against a nursing home due to Sammons’s repeated and ongoing inaction in the matter; his misrepresentations to the daughter; his failures to communicate with or respond to the daughter; his participation in the matter during periods when he was either suspended from the practice of law for CLE deficiency or ineligible to practice for nonpayment of dues; and his ultimate abandonment of the matter.”

After unsuccessful attempts at personal service, the Bar served Sammons through publication and moved for an entry of default. Following the Special Master’s suggestion, personal service was ultimately achieved, and Sammons filed an answer. However, the special master still entered a default against him, leading to the recommendation of disbarment.

The review board expressed concerns about service by publication, noting that Sammons Jr. could have been easily located for personal service. They recommended remanding the case to the Special Master for an evidentiary hearing, asserting that the Bar’s actions should preclude seeking default based on the initial publication service.

The Supreme Court vacated the entry of default, Special Master’s order, and recommendation, citing that default should not have been entered. They concluded that Sammons’s case should proceed on the merits. The court’s decision considered the unique circumstances surrounding service and default entry.

The Decision states:

“Although we do not adopt the full analysis of the Review Board, we do agree with its ultimate recommendation that “the entry of default be vacated, and that the case be remanded back to the Special Master for discovery and an evidentiary hearing as if no default had been granted.” Accordingly, we vacate the Special Master’s order granting the Bar’s motion for default and the Special Master’s report and recommendation, and we remand this matter to the Special Master with the direction that he decides the merits of the case in accordance with the applicable rules and law.”

Mr. Sammons Jr. attended the Georgia State University College of Law, graduating in 1999. He practices in Atlanta, Georgia. He is licensed in Georgia. His info can be found on martindale.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.