Disciplinary Case Recommends Disbarment for Joseph William Cloud

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: Ma rch 3, 2026 S26Y02 87. IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH W ILLIAM CLOUD. P ER CURI AM. This discip linar y matter i s befo re th e Court on the r eport an d reco mmendat ion of Specia l Master Willia m T. Davis, who recomm ends th at Joseph Wil liam Cloud (S tate Ba r N o. 544 816), wh o has be en a mem ber of the St ate Bar si nce 2008 b ut has remai ned adminis tra tively s uspend ed s ince 2021 for fail ing to pay Stat e Ba r dues, b e dis barr ed for cert ain miscon duc t wh ile r epresen tin g two client s and for his ultimate aba ndonment of those client s. The St ate Bar ch arged Clou d w ith v iolat ing Ru les 1.3, 1. 4(a), 1.4 (b), 1.15 (I)(b), 1.15(I)(c), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.16 (d), 3. 2, 5.5(a), an d 8. 4(a)(4) of the Geo rgia Rules o f Profes sional Co nduct (“ GRPC”), found in Bar Rule 4 - 102(d). The max imum sanc tion f or violat ing Rules 1.3, 1.15(I)(b), 1.15(I)(c), 1.15(II)(a), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a)(4) is di sbarmen t; the max imu m NOTICE: T his opini on is subje ct to mo dificat ion res ultin g from motion s for re consi derat ion unde r Supre me C ourt Rule 27, the Cour t’s reco nsiderat ion, and editorial revisions by th e Reporter of Decisions. The versi on of the opinion publis hed in the Advance Sheets fo r the Geo rgia Repo rts, desi gnated as the “Final Copy, ” will r eplace an y prior version on the Court’s websi te and docket. A bound volu me of the Georgi a Reports will con tain the final a nd officia l text of t he opinio n.

2 sanc tion for t he remaining violat ions is a p ublic repr imand. The Speci al Maste r g rante d the St ate B ar’s moti on f or defau lt a fter Clou d fail ed to fi le an an swe r to th e fo rmal c ompl ain ts and orde red the p arties t o su bmit b rief s pe rtai nin g to th e appro priat e san cti on. After t he St ate B ar fil ed a b rief outl in ing sev eral agg rava tin g facto rs and one m iti gatin g fact or for t he Sp ecial Mas ter’s con sidera tion, and Cloud f ailed to file anything, the Spec ial Master issued his repor t and r ecomm endat ion. N eith er pa rty reques ted revi ew by the Revi ew Board. The S tate Bar h as n ow su bmi tted th e re cor d to th is Cou rt. Clou d has n ot fi l ed any excep tion s to the S peci al Maste r ’ s rep ort, and t he time fo r him to do so has run. Since C lou d is deem ed t o have admit ted every factual alleg ation and Rule vio latio n in the formal compla ints d ue to defa ult, we agree wit h the S pecia l Mast er that disba rment is the approp riat e san cti on. 1. Proced ural H ist ory Thi s matte r ari se s from two gri eva nces fil ed agai nst Cl oud, as set ou t i n Sta te D isci pli nary B oard Dock et (“ SDB D”) N os. 7779 and

3 7782. In con necti on w ith SD BD N o. 7779, the clien t fi led a g rievan ce agains t Cloud in Apri l 2022, con cerni ng C lou d’s abandon ment o f a lawsuit filed o n the clie nt’s behalf rela ted to a legal disp ute invo lving a comp etin g bus in ess. In c onnecti on with SDB D No. 7782, th e cli ent filed a grievan ce again st Cl oud in Mar ch 202 2, con cern in g Clou d’s failu re to ap prop riatel y di sbu rse $ 12,00 0 ent ruste d to C loud by th e clien t for th e pu rpose o f recl aimi ng t he cli ent’s r eal proper ty and Clou d’s fai lu re to respon d t o th e c lien t regard ing th e same. Cl oud did no t respond t o eit her gri ev ance and compl etely fai l ed to part icipate in the discip linary proces s, including failing to respo nd to the Fo rmal Com plai nts i ssued by the St ate B ar for bot h matters that w ere proper ly served by pub licati on pursuant to Bar Rule 4 - 203.1(b) (3)(ii). T he Spe cial M aste r deem ed t he factua l allega tions and a lleged Rule vio latio ns containe d in bot h complaint s admit ted by vi rtue of C loud ’s de faul t. S ee Ba r Rule 4 - 21 2(a). A fter t he Spec ial Master d irec ted t he par ties to su bmi t brief s abou t th e appr opria te level o f dis cipline, which Clo ud f ailed to d o, the Special Mast er issued his report and r ecomm enda tion th at Cl oud be dis bar red.

4 2. Specia l Ma ster’ s Rep ort and Recom mend ation (a) Base d on the fa ctual a llegations cont ained in the Form al Compla ints, which were deeme d admitt ed by Cloud’ s default, the Speci al Mast er f ou nd as f oll ows. Clou d was a dmi nist rativel y s uspe nded f rom t he pr actic e of law on Jul y 1, 2021, fo r fail in g to p ay St ate B ar dues. H e rem ai ns suspen ded. Clou d h as no t resp onde d to an y commun icati on from the State Bar or th e Sp ecial Mas ter throu ghou t th e d urati on of th ese d iscip linary p rocee dings. Relev ant t o SD BD No. 7 779, i n 2 018, the cli ent — a tatt oo busine ss — paid Cl oud $2, 500 to repres ent i ts in tere sts in a dispu te involvi ng a co mpeting ta ttoo b usiness, whic h res ulted in Cloud f iling a lawsu it i n su peri or cou rt on March 26, 2 019, on th e cli ent’ s behalf. But, on Sept ember 1, 202 0, Cl oud became i neli gibl e to pr acti ce law in G eorgia afte r fai lin g to p ay hi s S tate Bar du es. 1 C loud did not 1 Bar Rule 1 - 501(a) states t hat, “[u]pon the failure of a member to pay the license fee b y September 1, the mem ber shall ce ase to be a member in good standing,” and B ar Rule 1 - 203 states t hat, “[n]o p erson shall pra ctice law in this state unless s uch person is an acti ve member of the State Bar of Georgia in good standing.”

5 notif y the s uperior court, oppos ing couns el, or the client about his inel igi bili ty to pract ice l aw. He als o fail ed to w ith draw as coun sel of record in the pen din g law suit. On N ovem ber 10, 202 0, op posi ng couns el se rved Cl oud wi th di scover y reque sts. A fte r C loud faile d to respon d to th ose requ ests, and a fter opposi ng cou nsel ma de seve ral attemp ts to con tact Cl oud, opp osing coun sel mai led a l ette r to Cl oud on Mar ch 8, 2021, pu rsuant to U niform Su peri or Co urt R ule 6. 4(b) (“Rul e 6.4(b) l ett er”) (r equi ring th at c ounsel co nfer in go od fa ith befor e fili ng an y moti on se ekin g to r esol ve a dis cove ry di spute). Cloud f ailed to noti fy the cli ent abou t the R ule 6.4(b) lett er or to advis e the clien t th at new coun sel shou ld be ret ained to re pres ent its inte rest s. Ins tead, Cl oud all owed th e respon se d eadlin e to pas s with out ac ting on the m atte r. C onsequ ently, on Sept embe r 20, 2021, opposi ng cou nsel fi led a “M otion to St rike,” wh ich w as al so s ent dire ctly to the clie nt. Follo wing the hea ring o n the mo tion, which the trial cou rt treat ed as a m oti on to comp el, th e t rial cour t issu ed an order on Sept ember 23, 20 21, en teri ng a def aul t jud gment again st the cl ien t and award ing expen ses and atto rney’s fees to opp osing

6 couns el. The tria l court a lso ordere d Cloud to file the clie nt’s discov ery respon ses di rectly wit h th e c ourt as proof of Cl oud ’s compli ance with the trial court ’s order an d pay $500 to oppos ing couns el as a s ancti on. Howev er, Cl oud fai led to comp ly, and th e clien t was fo rced to pay the $ 500 s anction. In Spring 2 022, the clie nt retain ed n ew coun sel, w ho filed am ended plea din gs and p roceed ed with the litigat ion. Af ter ne w counse l was also unable to comm unicat e with Cloud, the clie nt filed a gr ievance wit h the St ate Bar. Relev ant t o SD BD No. 7 782, th e clien t r etai ned Cl oud to repres ent the clie nt i n recl aimi ng real prop erty th at was f orecl osed and s old i n a tax sal e. In Ju ne 201 9, th e cl ient ent ru sted $1 2,00 0 to Clou d for the pu r pose o f rei mbur sin g the p urch aser of th e p ro per ty for th e amoun t th at the pu rchas er p aid at th e tax s al e, wh ich w ould have al lowed t he cli ent to re claim his property. Afte r a year pas se d without hearing fr om Cloud, the client lear ned that Cloud had not used th e fun ds for th e pro perty ’s red empti on. A lthough the c lient

7 attemp ted to c ontact C lou d, th e cl ien t neve r re ceiv ed an y r espon se. The cl ien t then fi led a griev anc e wi th th e Stat e Bar. (b) Based on the GR PC R ul e viol ations charg ed by t he Fo rmal Compla ints, which were deeme d admitt ed by Cloud’ s default, the Speci al Mast er c oncl uded th at Cl oud’s condu ct v iol ated Rules 1.3, 2 2 Rule 1.3 states that “[a] lawyer shal l act with reason able diligence and promptness in repr esenting a clie nt,” and defines “re asonable dil igence” to mean that “a lawyer shall not withou t just cause to the detriment of the clien t in effect willfully ab andon or willful ly disregard a legal matter entrusted to t he lawyer.”

8 1.4(a), 3 1.4(b), 4 1.15(I)(b), 5 1.15(I)(c), 6 1.15(II)(a), 7 1.16(d), 8 3.2, 9 5.5(a), 10 and 8. 4(a) (4). 11 The Speci al Mas ter then consid ere d the 3 Rule 1.4(a) states, i n relevant part, that a lawyer shall: “keep the clie nt reasonably informe d about the status of the matt er;” “promptly com ply with reasonable requests for informati on;” and “cons ult with th e client abou t any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when t he lawy er knows that the client expects assistance not perm itted by the Georgi a Rules of Professional Conduct or other la w.” 4 Rule 1.4(b) states t hat “a lawyer shall explain a matt er to the extent reasonably necessa ry to permit the client t o make in formed decisio ns regarding the repre sentation.” 5 Rule 1.15(I)(b) states, in relevant part, t hat “a lawyer may not disregard a third person ’ s in terest in funds or othe r property in the lawyer ’ s p ossession.” 6 Rule 1.15(I)(c) state s, in relevant p art: Upon receiving funds or other proper ty in which a client o r third person has an interest, a lawyer sha ll promptly not ify the client or third person, … shal l promptly del iver to the clie nt or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive a nd, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly rend er a full account ing regarding such property. 7 Rule 1.15(II)(a) states, in relevant pa rt, that a lawyer w ho receives money or property o n a client’s behal f “shall maintain o r have available on e or more trust account s as requ ired by these rules,” and that “[a]ll funds held by a lawyer for a client and all funds hel d by a lawyer in any othe r fiduciary capacity shall be deposited i n and adminis tered from a trust acc ount.” 8 Rule 1.16(d) states that, u pon terminat ing his or h er representation, a lawyer “shall take steps to the ex tent reasonably practic able to protect a client’s interests,” such as “giving re asonable notic e to the client, allowing time for employment of o ther counsel, surre ndering papers an d property t o which the client is en titled and refunding an y advance payment of fee that has not been earned.” 9 Rule 3.2 states that “[a] la wyer sh all make reason able efforts to expedite litigation c onsistent with the interest of the cli ent.” 10 Rule 5.5(a) states that “[a] la wyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in viol ation of the r egulation of the le gal profession in that

9 Ameri can Bar Associ ati on Sta ndards f or Im posi ng L awyer Sancti ons (“ABA Standa rds”) in d eterm ini ng the appro pria te lev el of d iscipline in t his ca se. See In th e Matt er of Br eault, 318 Ga. 127, 127 (2024) (ci tin g In the Matter of Cook, 311 Ga. 306 (2 021) (exp laining tha t, while no t co ntrolling, t he ABA S tanda rds are “gene rally inst ruct ive as to the ques tion o f punishm ent”)); I n t he Matt er of Mo rse, 266 Ga. 652 (1996). Th us, as i ns tructed by ABA Standa rd 3.0, the Sp ecial Mast er con side red th e du ty vi olated by C loud ’s condu ct, Clou d’s men tal s tate at the ti me, the pot ential or actual i nju ry cau sed by C lou d’s mi scon duct, and th e exi stence of an y aggrav atin g or mi tigati ng fact ors. See ABA Stan dard 3. 0 (w hen impos ing a sa nction, a court should co nsider “the duty vio lated,” “th e lawy er’s men tal stat e,” “the p otent ial or ac tual i nju ry cau sed by the lawy er’s mi scon duct, ” and “the exi stenc e of aggrav atin g or mitig ating factors”). jurisdiction or assist another in doin g so.” 11 Rule 8.4(a)(4) states that a lawyer v iolates the Georgia Rules of Professional Condu ct when he “engag e[s] in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, d eceit or misrepr esentation.”

10 The Sp ecial Maste r firs t conclude d that the d uty Cloud viola ted was to his client s and tha t he had a duty t o consult a nd comm unicate with his c lients a nd to perfor m the wor k for whic h he was hired. The Speci al Ma ster fu rthe r concl ude d t hat C loud had a duty to pre serv e his clie nts’ p roperty and to not engage in d ishone st cond uct. Not ing that only the S tate Ba r’s alleg atio ns an d arg umen ts w ere avail able in det ermining t he app ropriat e discip line, a s Cloud faile d to res pond to or partic ipate in the discip linar y proceed in gs, th e Spe cial Mast er conclude d that Clo ud had intent ionally v iolated these dutie s: the du ty to p res erve th e cl ients ’ pro perty, see AB A St andar d 4.1; th e duty of d ili gence, see AB A Stan dar d 4.4; an d the d uty of cand or, se e ABA Standard 4.6. The Sp ecial M aste r fu rthe r cons idere d tha t, fo r each of thes e dut y viol ation s, th e A BA Stan dard s gen erall y deem disbarm ent as a n app rop riate pen alty. See ABA Stan dards 4.1 1 (disba rment g enerally ap propri ate w hen a l aw yer know in gly conve rts cli ent prop erty and caus es the clien t in jury or pot ential inj ury), 4. 41 (dis barmen t gen eral ly app rop riate wh en a l awye r: (a) aband ons th e pr actice and c ause s the cli ent se rio us or p oten tiall y

11 ser ious injur y; (b) knowingly f ails t o perfor m servic es for a clie nt and causes the clien t seri ous or po tenti ally seriou s in jury; or (c) engag es in a pat tern of ne glect w ith respe ct to cli ent matt ers and c auses the client serio us or potent ially se rious inj ury), and 4.6 1 (dis barmen t is general ly ap prop riate wh en a la wyer k nowi ngl y decei ves a clien t with the i ntent to bene fit the la wy er or an other, an d c auses th e client serio us or potent ially se rious injur y). The Sp ecial M ast er th en concl ude d that C loud ’s a ction s wer e “know ing,” rathe r th an in advert ent or negl igen t, bec ause C loud took on the r epres entat ion of the se tw o clien ts, w as aware o f the circ umstanc es involve d in each c lient’s case, knew what his c lients need ed from him, and kno wingly faile d to act on be half of his c lients. See AB A St anda rds, II: T he oreti cal F ramew ork (defining knowle dge as “ the consci ou s awaren ess of the na tur e or atten dant circum stan ces of the c onduct but wit hout t he co nscious o bjec tive or purpos e to accom pli sh a par ticu lar resul t.”). The Sp ecial M as ter fu rther concl u ded that C loud ’s conduc t res ulted in har m to both c lients — that is, Clou d’ s tatto o - busines s

12 clien t (SDB D No. 7779) was f orce d to p ay san ction s d ue to C lou d’s failur e to act during l itigat ion and had to reta in new couns el, a nd Clou d’s pro perty - redem ption cl ien t (SD BD No. 7782) lost $12,0 00, whi ch was conver ted by Cl oud “f or u nkn own reasons,” and t he clie nt was c onsequ entl y un able t o re claim his proper ty. T he Spe cial Mas ter also concl ude d tha t sev er al ag gravati ng fact ors app ly to Cloud, includin g t hat Clo ud had a d ishone st or self ish motiv e, as he c onverte d client f unds f or his own pe rso nal use; Clou d disp layed a patte rn o f mis cond uct, as he engag ed in a p att ern of negl ect towar d hi s cli ents an d failed to perf orm w ork for his client s; Clo ud committe d multip le of fense s, in that he violat ed eight Rules o f the GRPC in two matter s; and, last ly, Cloud has substant ial exp erienc e in the p ractic e of la w. 12 S ee AB A St anda rd 9. 22(b), (c), (d), (e), an d (i). C once rnin g any miti gati ng fa ctors, the Sp ecial 12 The Special M aster also found that Cloud com mitted bad -f aith obstruction by intentionally fa iling to comply with th e Rules and any orders of the disciplinary age ncy, failing to respo nd to grievances, fai ling to participate in the disciplinary proceedin gs to include bein g in default, and failing t o respond to the Special Master ’s email. However, we do not consider th ese findings in determining the appro priate level of discipli ne, given that the other aggravating factors are more than sufficient to justify d isbarment.

13 Master c oncl uded that C loud’s lack of a pri or dis cipl in ary reco rd was the onl y mi tigat in g fac tor p resen t in hi s case. See A BA S tanda rd 9.32(a). Finally, noting that this Co urt has previo usly disba rred attorn eys w ho e ngag ed in s imi lar cond uct, the Spe cial M aste r recomm end ed di sbarmen t an d c ited th e followi ng opi ni ons as support: In the Matter of Hakli n, 32 1 Ga. 530 (20 25) (di sbar ring a lawy er with no pr ior di scipl ine, who v iolated R ul es 1.2(a), 1. 3, 1. 4(a), and 1.5 in one matter a nd defa ulted in the discip linary procee dings); In th e Matt er of J ackson, 321 G a. 256 (2 025) (di sb arri ng a l awyer with no p rior discipline, who vio late d Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, a nd 1.4(a) in one ma tter and fai led t o pa rticipa te in th e dis cipl inary pro cess); In the Ma tter of P erry, 318 Ga. 155 (202 4) (disba rrin g a l awye r wh o viol ated R ules 1. 3, 1. 4, 1. 15(I), 1. 16, and 3.2 in th ree ma tters and failed to res pon d to the disci pli nary pr oceedi ngs); In the Matter of Lawren ce, 315 G a. 723 (2023) (dis barrin g a lawy er wi th n o pri or disci pli ne, wh o viol ated R ul es 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(I), 1.15(I II), 1.16, 8.1, 8.4, an d 9.3 in one m att er an d fai led to p artici pat e in th e

14 discip linary process); In the M att er o f Pow er, 314 Ga. 50 4 (202 3) (disba rrin g a law yer w ith n o prior disci pli ne, w ho viol ated Ru les 1. 2, 1.3, 1. 4, 1.5, 1. 15(I), 1.15 (II), 1.15 (I II), 1. 16, an d 9.3 i n th ree ma tters and defa ulted in t he discip linary proce edings); In the Matter of Blain, 315 G a. 475 (2023) (dis bar ring a lawy er w ith no p rior disci pli ne, wh o violate d Ru les 1.2 (a), 1.3, and 1. 4 in on e matt er and intent ionally f ailed to co mply with Ba r r ules co ncerning the discip linary proces s); In the Matter of Ho lliday, 308 Ga. 216 (20 20) (disba rrin g a law yer w ith n o prior disci pli ne, w ho viol ated Ru les 1. 2, 1.3, 1. 4, 1.1 6, 3. 2, an d 8.4 in three matt ers an d fail ed to r espon d to the d isciplina ry proc eedings). 3. Analysis Giv en that C lou d i s deem ed t o hav e ad mit ted every factual allega tion a nd allege d Rule vio latio n in the f ormal c ompla int s due to d efault, we agree w ith the Sp ecial Mast er tha t Cloud ha s viola ted Rul es 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4 (b), 1.15(I)(b), 1. 15(I)(c), 1. 15(I I)(a), 1.1 6(d), 3.2, 5.5(a), and 8.4(a) (4); that dis barm ent is an app ropr iate s anction in this c ase based on the seve rity of Cloud’s misco nduct in c onnect ion

15 with two client s; and t hat disb arment is consist ent with the similar cases cited by th e S pecial Mas ter. Accordi ng ly, i t is h ereby order ed th at th e n ame of J osep h William Clo ud be remov ed f rom th e roll s of pe rso ns au thori zed t o practi ce law in the Sta te of Ge orgi a. Cloud is rem inded of h is duties pursua nt to Bar Rule 4 - 219(b). Disba r red. All th e Just ices concu r.