IN THE MATTER OF MORRIS P. FAIR, JR. (two cases)
disciplinary matters are before the Court on the report and
recommendation of the Special Master, LaVonda Rochelle
DeWitt, recommending that the Court disbar Morris P. Fair,
Jr. (State Bar No. 581019).
State Bar filed formal complaints in State Disciplinary Board
("SDB") Docket Nos. 6829 and 6830 charging Fair,
who has been a member of the Bar since 2000, with violations
of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16
(a), 1.16 (d), 5.5 (a), and 8.1 (a). See Bar Rule 4-102 (d).
The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 5.5
(a), and 8.1 (a) is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for
a violation of Rules 1.4 and 1.16 is a public reprimand.
After Fair failed to file an answer within thirty days of
service, the State Bar moved for default judgment in both
matters, and Fair did not file a response. The Special Master
awarded default judgment and filed a Report containing
specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
SDB Docket No. 6829, the Special Master found the following
facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Fair's default:
that a client retained Fair in 2008 regarding claims in a
construction dispute; that Fair failed to terminate his
representation of the client when he was on interim
suspension from June 3, 2008 to July 18, 2008, and again when
he was suspended from July 24, 2010 to January 7, 2013,
nunc pro tunc to October 3, 2011; that Fair failed
to file timely responses to discovery requests, failed to
respond to opposing counsel's motion to compel discovery
responses, failed to promptly provide discovery responses
despite the trial court's order granting the opposing
parties' motion to compel, and failed to respond to the
opposing parties' motion to dismiss; that the trial court
granted the opposing parties' motion for sanctions on
October 2, 2012, striking Fair's client's complaint
and prohibiting him from defending the opposing parties'
counterclaim regarding breach of contract; that Fair failed
to return the client's documents or video recordings
after withdrawing as attorney of record; that the trial court
awarded $28, 195 in attorney fees to the opposing parties;
and that Fair failed to reasonably consult with the client
despite the client's repeated requests to communicate
with Fair, failed to keep the client reasonably informed
about the status of the client's case, and failed to
promptly respond to the client's requests to communicate.
Based on these facts, the Special Master concluded that Fair
violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (a), 1.16 (d), and 5.5 (a)
through his conduct in SDB Docket No. 6829.
SDB Docket No. 6830, the Special Master found the following
facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Fair's default:
that a client paid Fair approximately $1, 500 to represent
him in a criminal case; that Fair did not act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing the client; that the
client repeatedly requested to communicate with Fair but that
Fair failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the
status of the client's case and failed to promptly
respond to the client's requests to communicate; that
Fair ceased his representation of the client without
informing the client that he had ceased the representation or
that he intended to withdraw and without filing a motion to
withdraw from the case; that Fair did not provide the client
file to the client in a timely manner; that the assistant of
the trial judge e-mailed Fair to inform him that he was
counsel of record in the client's case and should appear
in court and that Fair replied that he filed a motion to
withdraw and that the client filed a Bar complaint; that Fair
did not refund the client's money; and that in his
responses to the State Bar, Fair wrote that he filed a motion
to withdraw from representing the client when that was not
true. Based on these facts, the Special Master concluded that
Fair violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d) and 8.1 (a) in his
representation of the client in SDB Docket No. 6830.
aggravation of discipline, the Special Master noted that Fair
has prior disciplinary offenses, including formal letters of
admonition in 2010 and 2015; his indefinite suspension in
2010,  which was lifted in 2013, nunc pro
tunc to October 3, 2011; and his two interim suspensions
in 2008 and 2015, respectively. The Special Master also noted
that pursuant to Bar Rule 4-103, a finding of a third or
subsequent disciplinary infraction, shall, in and of itself,
constitute discretionary grounds for suspension or
disbarment. The Special Master further found these additional
aggravating factors: pattern of misconduct, multiple
offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law.
She found no mitigating factors. The Special Master
recommends that Fair be disbarred for his violations of Rules
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (a), 1.16 (d), 5.5 (a), and 8.1 (a).
reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is the
appropriate sanction in these matters. See In the Matter
of Hayes, 291 Ga. 90 (727 S.E.2d 498) (2012) (disbarment
appropriate when attorney abandoned client's legal matter
by failing to respond to motion for summary judgment, which
was subsequently granted; failing to inform client that the
motion for summary judgment had been filed; failing to
reasonably communicate with client; and failing to keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of her case);
In the Matter of Weathington, 289 Ga. 19 (709 S.E.2d
262) (2011) (disbarment appropriate when attorney failed to
communicate with, abandoned, and caused harm to client in one
matter and in another matter, failed to communicate with and
discuss potential conflict of interest with clients and
failed to properly and competently prepare for trial).
Accordingly, the name of Morris P. Fair hereby is removed
from the rolls of attorneys authorized to practice law in the
State of Georgia. Fair is reminded of his duties under Bar
Rule 4-219 (c).
All the Justices concur.
 Fair initially was disbarred, but this
Court granted his motion for reconsideration, see S10Y1025
(July 27, 2010), and subsequently accepted his petition for
voluntary discipline and imposed the indefinite suspension
with conditions for reinstatement. See In ...