From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Arp

Supreme Court of Georgia
Apr 30, 2001
546 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 2001)

Opinion

S01Y0866.

DECIDED: APRIL 30, 2001

Voluntary surrender of license.

William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, E. Duane Cooper, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.


Richard Phillip Arp has petitioned this Court for the voluntary surrender of his license to practice law in this state. Arp admits that he paid a paralegal, the paralegal's business, and a chiropractor for the referral of cases and clients and thus violated Standard 13 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Standard 13 prohibits a lawyer from compensating a person or organization to recommend or secure employment by a client or as a reward for a recommendation. The State Bar of Georgia does not oppose Arp's petition, and the special master recommends that we accept Arp's voluntary surrender of his license pursuant to Bar Rule 4-110 (f).

We have reviewed the record and agree to accept Arp's petition for the voluntary surrender of his license. Accordingly, the name of Richard Phillip Arp is removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Arp is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c) to timely notify all clients of his inability to represent them, to take all actions necessary to protect their interests, and to certify to this Court that he has satisfied the requirements of the rule.

Voluntary surrender of license accepted. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED APRIL 30, 2001.


Summaries of

In re Arp

Supreme Court of Georgia
Apr 30, 2001
546 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 2001)
Case details for

In re Arp

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD PHILLIP ARP

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Apr 30, 2001

Citations

546 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 2001)
546 S.E.2d 486

Citing Cases

In Matter of Sinowski

We agree with the Review Panel, however, that information about such cases was not admissible evidence and…

In re Sinowski

We agree with the Review Panel, however, that information about such cases was not admissible evidence and…