Disbarred Twice in Georgia, Thievin’ Lawyer David R. Sicay-Perrow Received No Criminal Referral Nor Prosecution

S21Y0158.

IN THE MATTER OF DAVID R. SICAY-PERROW

FEB 15, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 22, 2022

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the State Bar’s Notice of Discipline, filed at the direction of the State Disciplinary Board (the “Board”), seeking the disbarment of David R. Sicay- Perrow (State Bar No. 645285), who has been a member of the State Bar since 1990, for violating Rules 1.15 (I) (a), (c), 1.15 (II) (a), (b), and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-201 (d).

The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) (a), (b), and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment.

Sicay- Perrow is currently suspended from the practice of law in this State, as reciprocal discipline for disciplinary action taken against him in Tennessee. See In the Matter of Sicay-Perrow, 301 Ga. 666 (802 SE2d 252) (2017).

In July 2018, the Membership Department of the State Bar also administratively suspended his law license as a result of his failure to pay dues.

The State Bar attempted to serve Sicay-Perrow at his official address in the State Bar’s membership records, but he failed to acknowledge service of the Notice of Discipline within 20 days of its mailing.

Since personal service could not be perfected, Sicay-Perrow also was served by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). Sicay-Perrow failed to file a Notice of Rejection.

Therefore, he is in default, has waived his right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).

According to the State Bar, the Board conducted an investigation into this matter, which revealed the following facts. In January 2013, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, a husband and wife (the “clients”) retained Sicay-Perrow’s law firm, Sicay- Perrow & Knighten, P.C. (the “firm”), to represent their interests in a civil collections case. Sicay-Perrow received $805 at the time he was retained.

In April 2013, the clients were notified that a settlement agreement had been negotiated on the couple’s behalf; in May 2013, a consent judgment was signed awarding $100,000 to the clients in Hall County superior court; and the judgment was then filed with the clerk of court in August 2013.

The judgment ordered the defendant to pay an initial lump sum of $30,000 to the firm on behalf of the clients — to be deposited in and administered from Sicay-Perrow’s IOLTA account — and the remaining $70,000 was to be remitted by the defendant to the firm in monthly payments of $600, which were to be deposited and administered from the IOLTA account to the clients in monthly payments of $600.

Sicay-Perrow received the initial lump sum of $30,000 in May 2013, but he failed to deposit it into his IOLTA account; instead, he deposited it into his business checking account. Similarly, money orders representing the defendant’s June and July payments of $600 were both deposited in August 2013 in the firm’s business checking account.

The clients expected to receive $23,850 from the initial lump sum (as Sicay-Perrow was entitled to $7,950 based on a contingency fee agreement).

However, in September 2013, Sicay-Perrow sent the clients an e-mail stating that, “an exceptionally large amount of money was stolen by a former office manager” and “I expect that we will be able to remit the lump sum amount to you within 30 days.”

Sicay-Perrow did not communicate with the clients within the promised 30 days; instead, he sent an e-mail to the clients in January 2014, confirming that he collected a total of $31,800 (the initial $30,000 and three payments of $600) of which he still owed the clients $23,850.

The clients then sent Sicay-Perrow a demand letter in March 2014, and he responded that he needed a little more time or he would need to file for bankruptcy.

Unbeknownst to the clients, Sicay-Perrow’s law firm had been placed into receivership in March 2014. He then told the clients he would be unable to repay them until the receivership ended in March 2017.

In February 2017, the clients e-mailed Sicay-Perrow to confirm that the payments would resume in March 2017, and he responded by e-mail, confirming that the monthly payments of $1,200 would resume.

The clients received a check for $1,200 in March, but did not receive a check in April 2017 as promised. After several unsuccessful attempts to contact Sicay-Perrow, the clients learned that he was no longer practicing law and that his whereabouts were unknown.

As of September 8, 2020 (the date of the Notice of Discipline), the clients had received seven checks from Sicay-Perrow totaling $6,400, with the last disbursement remitted from the firm’s business checking account and received in March 2017.

Although Sicay-Perrow provided the State Bar with three checks remitted to the clients from his IOLTA account, an investigation revealed that the funds disbursed to the clients from his IOLTA account belonged to different clients represented by his firm, such that he had also misappropriated those client funds when he made disbursements from his IOLTA account to the clients.

An investigation of Sicay-Perrow’s bank records also revealed that his IOLTA account did not have sufficient funds to repay the balance owed to the clients.

The State Bar found that the facts revealed by the Board’s investigation demonstrated that Sicay-Perrow violated Rule 1.15 (I) (a) and (c)1 when he made disbursements to the clients from his business checking account rather than his IOLTA account, when he began to delay monthly disbursements to the clients, and when the clients had to e-mail reminders to him in order to receive the monthly disbursements that they did receive.

The State Bar further found that he violated Rule 1.15 (II) (a), (b)2 when he remitted $1,200

disbursements to the clients from his business checking account rather than the IOLTA account, deposited the settlement funds into and disbursed them from his business checking account, kept more than his earned fee from the initial lump sum paid by the defendant, and failed to keep a sufficient balance in his IOLTA account in order to repay his clients the full amount owed.

Finally, the State Bar found that he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4)3 when he

(1) deposited the clients’ settlement funds into his business checking account instead of his IOLTA account,

(2) remitted payments to the clients from his IOLTA account knowing their funds had been deposited in his business checking account,

(3) notified the clients that he would go into bankruptcy if their monthly disbursements were not delayed, despite knowing that his law firm was placed in receivership, and

(4) notified the clients that they would receive monthly

had considered that

(1) Sicay-Perrow had a prior disciplinary history that included the suspension of his law license in 2017;

(LIT COMMENT: 5 Year suspension tantamount to disbarment).

(2) his dishonest conduct, which not only demonstrated his dishonesty toward these clients, but also toward other clients who had their funds misappropriated from his IOLTA account;

and

(3) his 30 years of experience in practicing law.

The Board found no mitigating factors to be present.

Accordingly, the State Bar requests that this Court enter an order disbarring Sicay- Perrow from the practice of law in this State.

Having considered the record, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter.

See In the Matter of Hunt, 304 Ga. 635, 635-638, 644 (820 SE2d 716) (2018) (disbarring attorney with prior disciplinary history for violating Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), and 8.4 (a) (4), related to attorney’s misuse of funds he was entrusted with as part of his representation of a client and her two sons);

In the Matter of Harris, 301 Ga. 378, 379-380 (801 SE2d 39) (2017) (disbarring attorney for violating Rules 1.15 (I) and 1.15 (II), where attorney misappropriated trust funds and commingled those funds with his own and offered no explanation for his conduct);

In the Matter of Rose, 299 Ga. 665, 666 (791 SE2d 1) (2016) (disbarring attorney for violating Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), and 8.4 (a) (4), where attorney misused funds he was entrusted with as part of a real estate closing).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of David R. Sicay-Perrow be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia.

Sicay-Perrow is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 2021.

Disbarment.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Wolanda R. Shelton, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.

In re Sicay-Perrow, 802 S.E.2d 252 (Ga. 2017)

Following this Court’s remand of this reciprocal disciplinary matter, see In the Matter of Sicay-Perrow, 300 Ga. 136 (793 SE2d 377) *667(2016), the Review Panel issued a new report and recommendation in which it recommended that David R. Sicay-Perrow (State Bar No. 645285) be suspended from the practice of law in Georgia for a period of five years or until such time as he is reinstated to practice in Tennessee, whichever event occurs earlier.

The Review Panel also recommended as a condition of reinstatement that Sicay-Perrow be required to satisfy his obligations to Trustee Management Corporation and Fidelity Bank, as referenced in the Tennessee Order of Enforcement dated January 26, 2016.

As neither Sicay-Perrow nor the Bar has filed any exceptions to the Review Panel’s report and recommendation, the matter is ripe for review.

See Bar Rule 4-219.

Details of Sicay-Perrow’s case can be found in In the Matter of Sicay-Perrow, supra, but in relevant part, Sicay-Perrow, who was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1990, entered a conditional guilty plea to a disciplinary matter pending in Tennessee based on actions undertaken in Georgia. Pursuant to that plea, he admitted committing acts in 2013 which amounted to violations of Rules 1.15 (I)-(III), 5.3 (a), and 8.4 (a) (1) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d), and agreed to suffer disbarment pursuant to Tenn. Supreme Court Rule 9, § 4.1 (2006) with a conditional right to reinstatement.

As a result, this reciprocal disciplinary matter was initiated in Georgia, see Rule 9.4 (b), and although Sicay-Perrow argued that mitigating factors existed which should lessen the discipline imposed in Georgia, see Rule 9.4 (b) (3) (i)-(vi) (Review Panel shall recommend substantially similar discipline unless lawyer demonstrates, or Review Panel finds from the face of the record, the existence of mitigating factors), both the State Bar and the Review Panel disagreed and focused instead on determining what would be a substantially similar discipline to that imposed in Tennessee.

After reviewing the Tennessee disciplinary rules, the Review Panel found that disbarment in Georgia was not substantially similar to disbarment with a conditional right of reinstatement in Tennessee, and therefore recommended a three-year suspension with reinstatement in Georgia conditioned on reinstatement in Tennessee and his satisfaction of certain monetary obligations.

On review, this Court found that the Review Panel considered the existence of substantially similar discipline based on a mistaken understanding of the Tennessee Rules.

See In the Matter of Sicay-Perrow, 300 Ga. at 138.

It recited those Rules and remanded this matter for reconsideration by the Review Panel. Id. On remand, the Review Panel engaged in an in-depth comparison of the Tennessee Rules governing disbarment with a conditional right of reinstatement and the Georgia rules governing disbarment and concluded that the punishments were dissimilar in two main ways: in Georgia, *668a disbarred attorney must seek readmission through the Office of Bar Admissions, which is separate from the disciplinary system, and must take and pass the bar examination prior to readmission, see Part A, Section 10 (a) of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, while in Tennessee, a lawyer disbarred with a conditional right of reinstatement must seek readmission by filing a petition for reinstatement within the disciplinary system; that petition is referred to a hearing panel; and the question of whether to condition reinstatement upon the lawyer’s successful completion of an admission examination is wholly within the discretion of that hearing panel or a reviewing court.

See Tenn. Supreme Court Rule 9, § 19.7 (2006) and Tenn. Supreme Court Rule 9, § 30.4 (d) (7) (2014).

Based on its comparison, the Review Panel found that a substantially similar discipline in Georgia to that imposed in Tennessee would be for Sicay-Perrow to be suspended from the practice of law in Georgia for a period of five years or until such time as he is reinstated to practice in Tennessee, whichever event occurs earlier.

It further conditioned Sicay-Perrow’s right to reinstatement on satisfaction of his obligations to Trustee Management Corporation and Fidelity Bank, as referenced in the Tennessee Order of Enforcement.

Decided June 30, 2017.

After review and consideration of the record and all of the pleadings filed by the parties, we accept the Review Panel’s determination as to substantially similar discipline.

Accordingly, we hereby order that, as a result of his admitted violations of Rules 1.15 (I)-(III), 5.3 (a) and 8.4 (a) (1), Sicay-Perrow be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years or until such time as he is reinstated to practice in Tennessee, whichever event occurs earlier, and that his reinstatement be conditioned on satisfactory proof that he has complied with his obligations to Trustee Management Corporation and Fidelity Bank, as referenced in the Tennessee Order of Enforcement.

At the conclusion of the suspension imposed in this matter, Sicay-Perrow may seek reinstatement by demonstrating to the State Bar’s Office of General Counsel that he has met the conditions for reinstatement.

If the State Bar agrees that the conditions have been met, it will submit a notice of compliance to this Court, and this Court will issue an order granting or denying reinstatement. Sicay-Perrow is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Suspension with conditions for reinstatement.

All the Justices concur. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittel-man, Wolanda R. Shelton, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. Giacoma Schleicher Roberts & Daughdrill, Gene Chapman, for Sicay-Perrow.