In the Matter of Clifford E. Hardwick, IV

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.

In the
Supreme Court of Georgia
No. S25Y1155

In the Matter of Clifford E. Hardwick, IV

Decided: May 19, 2026

PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report
and recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board
(“Review Board”), which reviewed the report and recommenda-
tion of Special Master Charles David Jones at the request of
Clifford E. Hardwick, IV (State Bar No. 325662), pursuant to Bar
Rules 4-214, 4-215, and 4-216. The formal complaint upon which
these disciplinary proceedings were based alleged that Hardwick,
who has been a member of the State Bar since 1976, violated
Rules 1.15(I)(a), 1.15(II)(a), 8.1(a), and 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia
Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC” or “Rules”) found in Bar
Rule 4-102(d). The maximum penalty for a violation of each of
these Rules is disbarment. Following an evidentiary hearing and
a hearing on aggravating and mitigating circumstances—at
which the State Bar presented evidence that Hardwick has been
disciplined on five prior occasions—the Special Master deter-
mined that Hardwick violated the Rules with which he was
charged and recommended that he be disbarred. The Review
Board adopted the Special Master’s findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendation of disbarment. After our careful re-
view of the record, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate
sanction in this case, particularly given that this is Hardwick’s
fifth disciplinary offense.
1. Procedural History
In November 2019, the State Bar filed a formal complaint
charging Hardwick with violations of Rules 1.15(I)(a) (a lawyer
shall hold funds or other property of clients or third persons that
are in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation
separate from the lawyer’s own funds); 1.15(II)(a) (requiring
every lawyer who practices law in Georgia and who receives
money on behalf of a client or in any other fiduciary capacity to
maintain a trust account and that all funds held by a lawyer for
a client or in any other fiduciary capacity shall be deposited in
and administered from a trust account); 8.1(a) (a lawyer in con-
nection with a disciplinary matter shall not knowingly make a
false statement of material fact); and 8.4(a)(4) (it is a violation of
the GRPC for a lawyer to engage in professional conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The State Bar al-
leged that, in 2016, Hardwick and Joseph Carswell—whom Hard-
wick previously represented in a criminal matter—used Hard-
wick’s name and reputation as a former City Attorney for the City
of Atlanta to lure 14 victims to send funds totaling $655,000 to
Hardwick’s personal and business bank accounts for what the vic-
tims were led to believe were legitimate investment opportuni-
ties. On February 14, 2020, 1 Hardwick responded to the formal
complaint, stating that, at the time, he was unaware of Joseph
Carswell’s investment scheme and that Carswell informed him
that the funds deposited into Hardwick’s accounts were funds
earned by Carswell for brokering certain transactions. Further,
Hardwick denied all Rule violations. The parties then engaged in
discovery, and, on October 27, 2021, the Special Master issued a
Pretrial Order. On September 19, 2022, the Special Master held

1 The parties agreed to extend the time period in which Hardwick was
required to respond to the formal complaint.

2
an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Hardwick violated
the Rules with which he was charged and, on April 16, 2024, the
Special Master held a second hearing on aggravating and miti-
gating circumstances. On December 4, 2024, the Special Master
issued his final report and recommendation. 2

2. Special Master’s Reports and Recommendation 3

(a) Factual Findings
Based on the State Bar’s formal complaint, Hardwick’s an-
swer, and the evidence at the hearings, the Special Master re-
counted the following. Hardwick and Carswell had an attorney-
client relationship that began in 2013 in connection with Carswell
being charged with felony exploitation of an elderly person and
two counts of identity fraud. Carswell pleaded guilty and was sen-
tenced to 15 years probation, which expressly prohibited Carswell
from conducting any business with an elderly person. Hardwick
maintained a relationship with Carswell during this probation
period. In the course of that relationship, Hardwick, in exchange
for compensation, allowed Carswell to use Hardwick’s bank ac-
counts as a depository for third-party funds. Specifically, in 2016,
Hardwick received money from third parties wired into his bank
accounts, 4 held the money in his bank accounts for a period of
time, and then distributed the money to Carswell and others, ei-
ther at the direction of Carswell or according to written escrow

2 We express our concern that the formal complaint was filed against
Hardwick in November 2019, the final hearing did not take place until April
2024, and the Special Master did not issue his final report until December
2024.
3 The Special Master issued two reports. The first report addressed his
factual findings and determinations as to the Rules violated. The second report
addressed the appropriate sanction for Hardwick’s misconduct.
4 Hardwick’s accounts were not IOLTA accounts.

3
agreements. Hardwick retained a 2% commission on the money
wired from third parties into his bank accounts with respect to
some of the transactions. The Special Master further recounted
that, during the evidentiary hearing, Hardwick testified that he
received money wired from third parties into his bank accounts
either in a capacity as a “paymaster” under an “escrow agree-
ment” or because he was providing Carswell an “accommodation
service.”
The Special Master then described the transactions that
occurred related to this disciplinary matter, identifying a trans-
action involving an individual (the “individual transaction”) and
multiple transactions involving clients of an investment firm (the
“firm transactions”). Regarding the individual transaction, an el-
derly woman authorized the transfer of $20,000 from her bank
account to Hardwick’s business account entitled “Clifford E.
Hardwick IV D/B/A Clifford E. Hardwick IV ESQ.” The woman
transferred the money after being promised a “safe investment
opportunity.” On October 25, 2016, Hardwick received the
$20,000 and began making numerous wire transfers out of the
account to Carswell. By November 7, 2016, the balance in the ac-
count was $2,274.74. The woman received no investment returns
nor was her $20,000 returned. Regarding the firm transactions,
upon also being promised “safe investment opportunities,” 13 cli-
ents of an investment firm authorized the transfer of funds from
their respective bank accounts to a personal account held by
Hardwick. The amount that each client sent ranged from $10,000
to $110,000 and totaled around $635,000. Between 2016 and
2017, Hardwick made several wire transfers from this personal
account to Carswell and kept some funds as a purported “escrow
fee.” The clients received no investment returns and, despite de-
mands, received none of their money back.

4
The Special Master also recounted that Hardwick testified
that at the time he was allowing Carswell to use his bank ac-
counts, he “had been dealing with [Carswell] professionally …
[for] almost two years,” and had “no real issues with [Carswell].”
However, Hardwick simultaneously acknowledged that before the
transactions in this disciplinary matter occurred, he was con-
tacted by another group of “investors” who reported problems
with transactions involving Carswell. Hardwick further acknowl-
edged that he was aware that he was named in a State Bar Griev-
ance filed by these investors because he was listed as the escrow
agent for the transactions involved 5 and also was aware of Car-
swell’s prior guilty plea to elder abuse, as Hardwick represented
Carswell in this matter. The Special Master also noted that, dur-
ing the evidentiary hearing, Hardwick “demonstrated some con-
fusion” regarding the exact nature of the financial services he pro-
vided to Carswell. For example, Hardwick stated that he handled
money pursuant to escrow agreements but did not put the money
into an escrow account. Further, Hardwick testified that he was
unsure whether he took a 2% commission with respect to the in-
dividual and firm transactions but later conceded that he did in
fact take a 2% commission in connection with at least one of the
transactions. However, despite Hardwick’s contradictory state-
ments and characterization of the financial services he provided
to Carswell, the Special Master explained that Hardwick’s admit-
ted conduct of receiving the third-party funds into his accounts
hid the actual nature of the fraudulent transactions. Further, the
Special Master found that although Hardwick testified that he
did not know anything about the sources of the funds he was re-
ceiving or why the funds were being sent to him, as Carswell’s
criminal defense attorney, Hardwick knew Carswell was not to

5 This grievance filed by these investors was later dismissed.

5
have any contact or business dealings with elderly persons as a
result of his guilty plea yet made no effort to determine the age of
anyone involved in the transactions.
Additionally, the Special Master addressed the statements
Hardwick made in connection with this disciplinary matter that
the Special Master determined Hardwick knew to be false. The
Special Master recounted that in January 2018 and May 2018,
Hardwick sent letters to the State Bar in response to two griev-
ances filed against him by the woman involved in the individual
transaction and a representative of the investment firm. In these
letters, Hardwick claimed that he had “absolutely no prior notice”
of the victims’ transactions and that he was “not a participant” in
Carswell’s investment scheme. However, at the time these state-
ments were made, the evidence shows that Hardwick already re-
ceived the victims’ funds; disbursed the funds to Carswell; taken
a 2% commission on at least one transaction; and received an
email from the firm’s representative inquiring about the firm’s
clients’ funds. Moreover, after receiving the email from the firm’s
representative and before responding to the grievances, Hardwick
emailed Carswell to inform Carswell that he received another
email from one of the investors regarding a “botched transaction.”

(b) Rule Violations
The Special Master concluded that Hardwick violated
Rules 1.15(I)(a) by failing to hold the funds he received separate
from his own funds and failing to keep the funds in an approved
attorney trust account; 1.15(II)(a) by failing to deposit the funds
he received into an attorney trust account and by failing to ad-
minister the funds from such an account; 8.1(a) by making know-
ingly false statements in the letters to the State Bar that he had
“no knowledge” of the deposits made by the victims into his bank

6
accounts; and 8.4(a)(4) by “deceitful[ly],” “dishonest[ly],” and “il-
legal[ly]” renting out his bank accounts to Carswell for the receipt
and transmission of other people’s money.

(c) ABA Standards
After concluding that Hardwick violated the provisions of
the GRPC with which he was charged, the Special Master applied
the framework set out in the ABA Standards, which provide that,
when imposing a sanction, “a court should consider the following
factors: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s mental state; (c) the
potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and
(d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.” ABA
Standard 3.0. In assessing the duty violated, the Special Master
determined that Hardwick violated his ethical duties to the legal
system, his ethical duties owed as a professional, and his duties
to third parties by failing to properly administer funds. In as-
sessing Hardwick’s mental state, the Special Master determined
that Hardwick knowingly made false statements to the discipli-
nary authorities with the intent to mislead for his own benefit and
was a knowing participant in Carswell’s fraudulent scheme. In
assessing the injuries caused, the Special Master determined that
Hardwick’s conduct injured the reputation of the legal profession
and injured the victims who sent him money.
Turning to the existence of aggravating and mitigating fac-
tors, the Special Master determined that several of the aggravat-
ing factors listed in ABA Standard 9.22 applied. The Special Mas-
ter determined that Hardwick had prior disciplinary offenses—as
Hardwick had twice been suspended by this Court and had re-
ceived two formal letters of admonition6—and that Hardwick

6 Although not considered by the Special Master in aggravation, the

7
committed multiple offenses because his conduct violated several
provisions of the GRPC. See ABA Standard 9.22(a) and (d). The
Special Master also determined that Hardwick had a dishonest or
selfish motive because he allowed Carswell to use his bank ac-
count so that Hardwick could make money on the transactions;
refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct as he
testified at the hearings that he was a victim of Carswell’s
scheme; and showed an indifference to making restitution, as he
did not even offer to use his “own ill-gotten gains” from the trans-
actions as partial restitution. See ABA Standard 9.22(b), (g), (j).
Additionally, the Special Master determined in aggravation that
the woman involved in the individual transaction was a vulnera-
ble victim due to her age and that Hardwick had substantial ex-
perience in the practice of law. See ABA Standard 9.22(h) and (i).
The Special Master then determined that only two mitigating fac-
tors applied: evidence of good character and remoteness of prior
offenses. See ABA Standard 9.32(g) and (m). Further, the Special
Master explained that “the aggravating factors significantly out-
weigh the mitigating factors in this matter.”

(d) Recommended Discipline
In assessing the appropriate discipline, the Special Master
concluded that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for Hard-
wick’s Rule violations.

3. Review Board’s Report and Recommendation
At Hardwick’s request, the Review Board reviewed the
Special Master’s report and recommendation. The Review Board

transcript from the hearing on aggravating and mitigating circumstances
shows that Hardwick also admitted that in 2006, he received an interim sus-
pension for failing to respond to a grievance filed against him.

8
adopted the Special Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and agreed that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

4. Hardwick’s Exceptions
Hardwick filed exceptions in this Court to the Review
Board’s report and recommendation. In his exceptions, he argues
that the Special Master erred in concluding that he violated Rule
8.1(a) by making knowingly false statements; that his alleged con-
duct does not fall within the scope of Rule 8.4(a)(4) because it was
not professional in nature nor did he act dishonestly; that he was
not engaged in the practice of law when he received and disbursed
the funds at issue and therefore cannot have violated Rules
1.15(I)(a) and 1.15(II)(a); and that the recommendation of disbar-
ment is inappropriately severe. In response, the State Bar argues
that the Special Master and Review Board correctly determined
that Hardwick violated the Rules with which he was charged and
that disbarment is appropriate.

5. Analysis
Regarding Hardwick’s Rule 8.1(a) violation, Hardwick as-
serts that he did not knowingly make any false statements in con-
nection with this disciplinary matter and that, therefore, the Spe-
cial Master erred in determining that he violated this Rule. How-
ever, the Special Master’s finding that Hardwick made false
statements in response to the two grievances filed against him
when he stated that he had no knowledge of the transactions at
issue is supported by the record, given that Hardwick received
and disbursed the funds in these matters and contacted Carswell
about receiving an email regarding another “botched transaction”
before making these statements to the State Bar. In his excep-
tions, Hardwick asserts that his responses were misconstrued
and that by stating he had no knowledge of the transactions at

9
issue, he was referring to the references in the grievances to the
investment opportunities and an escrow agreement. However, the
Special Master rejected this same argument and because “the
special master is in the best position to determine the witnesses’
credibility,” we “generally defer[] to the factual findings and cred-
ibility determinations made by the special master unless those
findings or determinations are clearly erroneous.” In the Matter
of Tuggle, 317 Ga. 255, 258 (2023). We therefore reject Hardwick’s
argument that the Special Master erred by concluding that he vi-
olated Rule 8.1(a).
Given Hardwick’s violations of Rule 8.1(a) and the several
applicable aggravating factors—including that this is Hardwick’s
sixth disciplinary offense—we agree with the Special Master and
the Review Board that disbarment is appropriate. As an initial
matter, a Rule 8.1(a) violation is a serious offense, and a single
violation of this Rule carries a maximum sanction of disbarment.
We have explained that “this Court has little tolerance for a law-
yer who lies during disciplinary proceedings or engages in con-
duct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” In
the Matter of Friedman, 270 Ga. 5, 6 (1998). See also In the Matter
of Shehane, 276 Ga. 168, 169–70 (2003) (“[m]aking deliberate
statements of falsehood … to the investigative process established
by this Court to aid in the regulation of the practice of law in
Georgia is not tolerated”). Moreover, Hardwick’s false statements
to the State Bar in this matter is just one more example of his
repeated disregard for the Bar Rules and the disciplinary process,
as he has engaged in a continuous pattern of Rule violations span-
ning over thirty years. The record shows that in 1994, Hardwick
received a Formal Letter of Admonition for ignoring the State
Bar’s request to respond to a client grievance filed against him.
In 2006, Hardwick received an interim suspension from the prac-
tice of law for failing to respond to a grievance filed against him

10
by another client. In 2008, Hardwick received a second Formal
Letter of Admonition for presenting himself to a different client
as a licensed attorney in good standing during his interim sus-
pension. In 2010, Hardwick received a six-month suspension for
violating several Rules by abandoning his clients and falsely stat-
ing during the disciplinary process that the litigation was re-
solved by settlement. See In the Matter of Hardwick, 288 Ga. 60
(2010). And in 2015, Hardwick received a 90-day suspension for
making a false statement to his client regarding the status of a
motion. See In the Matter of Hardwick, 297 Ga. 808 (2015). Ad-
ditionally, we note that in both the 2010 and 2015 matters, Hard-
wick’s conduct violated Rule 8.4(a)(4), which “is among the most
serious violations with which a lawyer can be charged,” see In the
Matter of West, 300 Ga. 777, 778 (2017), and, like in the current
case, his misconduct in these matters involved making false state-
ments. Given Hardwick’s extensive disciplinary history, we con-
clude that Rule 4-103 applies, under which “[a] finding of a third
or subsequent disciplinary infraction under these Rules shall, in
and of itself, constitute discretionary grounds for suspension or
disbarment.” See In the Matter of Melnick, 319 Ga. 730, 740 (2024)
(applying Rule 4-103 where attorney “received three prior disci-
plinary sanctions for similar conduct.”). Accordingly, given Hard-
wick’s Rule 8.1(a) violations and the applicability of Rule 4-103,
we conclude that disbarment is the only appropriate sanction and
that this sanction has been imposed in similar cases. See In the
Matter of Eddings, 314 Ga. 409, 417–18 (2022) (disbarring attor-
ney who, among other things, made false statements in connec-
tion with the disciplinary process in violation of Rule 8.1(a) and
had two prior disciplinary offenses); In the Matter of Nelson, 293
Ga. 578, 578–79 (2013) (disbarring attorney for violating Rule
8.1(a), among others, where attorney made false statements to
the State Bar and had two prior disciplinary offenses, acted in bad

11
faith, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct,
and had substantial experience in the practice of law). And be-
cause we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for
Hardwick’s violations of Rule 8.1(a), we pretermit consideration
of any additional issues regarding Hardwick’s violations of Rules
1.15(I)(a), 1.15(II)(a), and 8.4(a)(4). See In the Matter of Morris,
302 Ga. 862, 864 n.3 (2018) (declining to reach question of
whether attorney violated Rule 8.4(a)(3) because attorney clearly
violated other Rules for which disbarment was appropriate). 7
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Clifford
E. Hardwick, IV be removed from the rolls of persons authorized
to practice law in the State of Georgia. Hardwick is reminded of
his duties under Bar Rule 4-219(b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

7 We note that because we have only addressed Hardwick’s Rule 8.1
violation, we have not relied on ABA Standard 9.22(d) (multiple offenses) in
aggravation.

12