DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

In re Caroway

5/23/2005

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the special master, recommending that Respondent Anthony Gus Caroway receive a public reprimand for his violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (3) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Bar Rule 4-102 (d). We reject the Special Master's recommendation of a public reprimand and instead impose a suspension of 24 months.


Caroway pled guilty to possession of cocaine; possession of methamphetamine by ingestion; possession of marijuana (less than one ounce); and driving under the influence in the Superior Court of Bartow County, see OCGA §§ 16-13-39; 40-6-391 (a) (1), under the First Offender Act (OCGA § 42-8-60 et seq.) and the conditional discharge provision appearing at OCGA § 16-13-2. He was sentenced to ten days incarceration and the balance to be served on probation. He also was ordered to pay fines, fees and surcharges, and to perform 96 hours of community service.


The State Bar filed a Petition for Hearing and obtained the appointment of a special master. The evidence at the hearing showed that Caroway has had problems with drug and alcohol abuse since his teens. While in the U. S. Navy he underwent treatment and was sober for many years. In 2000, he started drinking again and his substance abuse escalated over the next two years. Caroway continued his real estate closing practice during this time period. Caroway's convictions were based on two separate incidents: a DUI arrest during which drugs were found in his car and a subsequent arrest after police discovered drugs in Caroway's boat after his boat was stopped by a game warden. After his arrest, Caroway sought counseling and entered Ridgeview Institute for its in-patient program. Although an agent of Caroway's title insurance company conducted an audit of his trust account and found no improprieties, Caroway testified that he made drug purchases in his office during business hours, used cocaine during business hours, and closed real estate transactions while under the influence of cocaine. Caroway admits he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2) by pleading guilty to the felonies but denies that he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (3) by pleading to the misdemeanor.


The special master considered the testimony of Caroway's doctors, counselors, and other health professionals, and his current employer , all of whom stated their belief that Caroway has worked hard to control his addiction and has been successful. The special master found that Caroway violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2), but that he did not violate 8.4 (a) (3) because there was no evidence of moral turpitude or that the underlying conduct related to Caroway's fitness to practice law. In mitigation of discipline, the special master listed the absence of a disciplinary record during Caroway's eight years as a member of the State Bar, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, personal and emotional problems, a good faith effort to make restitution and rectify the consequences of his actions, free and full disclosure to the disciplinary authorities and a cooperative attitude, good character, a physical or mental impairment, interim rehabilitation, the imposition of other penalties (Caroway's criminal sentence), and remorse. As a result, the special master recommended that Caroway receive only a public reprimand with substantial conditions.


In its exceptions to the recommendation, the State Bar asserts that the appropriate sanction in this case is either disbarrment or suspension, with any suspension to be lifted only by order of this Court. See In the Matter of Kitchings, 264 Ga. 301 (444 SE2d 312) (1994) (24-month suspension); In the Matter of Patteson, 262 Ga. 591 (423 SE2d 248) (1992) (30-month suspension).<

Page 1 2 

Georgia DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.