In the Matter of Justin Allen Chin

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

Decided: July 22, 2025

S25Y0879. IN THE MATTER OF JUSTIN ALLEN CHIN.

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 recommendation of Special

Master Samuel Jeffrey Rusbridge and recommended that Justin

Allen Chin (State Bar No. 886274) be disbarred for his conduct in

connection with eight separate client matters. The formal

complaints upon which these disciplinary proceedings were based

alleged that Chin, who has been a member of the State Bar since

2012, violated Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (a), 1.5 (a), 1.5 (b), 1.8 (a), 1.8

(b), 1.8 (j), 1.15 (I) (a), 1.15 (I) (c), 1.15 (I) (d), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.15 (II)

(b), 1.16 (c), 1.16 (d), 3.2, 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 Rules 1.4, 1.5 (a), 1.5

(b), 1.8 (a), 1.8 (j), 1.16 (c), 1.16 (d), and 3.2 is a public reprimand.

The maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.8 (b),

1.15 (I) (a), 1.15 (I) (c), 1.15 (I) (d), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.15 (II) (b), and 8.4

(a) (4) is disbarment. Although Chin acknowledged service of the

formal complaints, he failed to timely file his answers, and the

Special Master granted the State Bar’s motion for default, such that

the Rule violations charged were deemed admitted.

Following an evidentiary hearing on aggravating and

mitigating circumstances, the Special Master determined that most

of Chin’s GRPC violations were due to negligence and that Chin’s

conduct did not cause actual injury to his clients, and he

recommended that Chin receive an 18-month suspension from the

practice of law. The State Bar requested review by the Review

Board, which concluded that the Special Master’s determinations as

to Chin’s mental state and the injuries his misconduct caused were

clearly erroneous and unsupported by the record. Rather, the

Review Board determined that Chin acted knowingly in most

2
instances; that Chin caused actual, or the potential for, injury to his

clients; that additional aggravating factors existed; and that

disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

Chin has filed in this Court exceptions to the Review Board’s

report and recommendation, contending that the Special Master

properly assessed his mental state and the lack of injury to his

clients, that one of the aggravating factors the Review Board

determined applied was not applicable, and that an 18-month

suspension is appropriate. In response, the State Bar argues that

the Review Board correctly concluded that Chin’s actions were

knowing, that Chin’s conduct caused actual, or the potential for,

injury to his clients, that additional aggravating factors applied, and

that disbarment is appropriate.

Based on our review of the record, we agree with the Review

Board that the Special Master clearly erred in his determinations as

to Chin’s mental state and the injury caused by his conduct because

those findings were unsupported by the record. Further, we agree

3
with the Review Board that disbarment is the appropriate sanction

for Chin’s multiple GRPC violations.

1. Procedural History

Between May 31, 2023, and June 5, 2023, the State Bar filed

eight formal complaints charging Chin with violations of Rules 1.2

(a) (a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope

and objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as

to the means by which they are to be pursued); 1.3 (a lawyer shall

act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a

client); 1.4 (a) (a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed

about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable

requests for information); 1.5 (a) (a lawyer shall not make an

agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an

unreasonable amount for expenses); 1.5 (b) (the scope of the

representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for

which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the

client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after

commencing the representation); 1.8 (a) (a lawyer shall not

4
knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other

pecuniary interest adverse to a client); 1.8 (b) (a lawyer shall not use

information gained in the professional relationship with a client to

the disadvantage of the client); 1.8 (j) (a lawyer shall not acquire a

proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of

litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client); 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 or other property); 1.15 (I) (c)

(upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third

person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or

third person); 1.15 (I) (d) (when in the course of representation a

lawyer is in possession of funds or other property in which both the

lawyer and a client or a third person claim interest, the property

shall be kept separate by the lawyer until there is an accounting and

severance of their interests); 1.15 (II) (a) (all funds held by a lawyer

for a client shall be deposited in and administered from a trust

account); 1.15 (II) (b) (no personal funds shall ever be deposited in a

5
lawyer’s trust account, except that unearned attorney fees may be

so held until the same are earned); 1.16 (c) (when a lawyer

withdraws it shall be done in compliance with applicable laws and

Rules); 1.16 (d) (upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall

take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s

interests and surrender papers and property to which the client is

entitled and refund any advance payment of a fee that has not been

earned); 3.2 (a lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite

litigation consistent with the interests of the client); and 8.4 (a) (4)

(it shall be a violation of the Rules for a lawyer to engage in

professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

misrepresentation). Chin acknowledged service of the complaints,

but failed to file timely answers by July 23, 2023. On August 17,

2023, the State Bar filed a motion for default pursuant to Bar Rule

4-212 (a). On September 22, 2023, Chin’s attorney entered her

appearance, and on October 3, 2023, Chin filed a response in

opposition to the State Bar’s motion for default, requesting that the

Special Master permit a ten-day extension for Chin to file his

6
answers. Following a hearing, the Special Master granted the State

Bar’s motion for default, finding that Chin’s request for an extension

was not filed within 30 days of service as required by Rule 4-212, he

never moved to open default, and he failed to provide any facts which

would provide a basis for opening default.1 The Special Master then

ordered an evidentiary hearing on the aggravating and mitigating

circumstances, after which he submitted his report and

recommendation.

2. Evidentiary Hearing

At the evidentiary hearing, Chin testified that he had

substantial experience in practicing law, that he had worked in

family law for 12 years, and that he was the sole practitioner

handling the eight cases at issue and had full control of the IOLTA

and operating accounts in these matters. Chin further testified that

he represented the clients in these discipline matters in divorce

proceedings, some of which involved custody disputes; that, in the

1 Chin does not challenge the Special Master’s grant of default.

7
majority of these cases, there was a fee dispute and several clients

had to file arbitration claims to get a resolution on the dispute; that

he filed liens against his clients in four of these cases, all of which

were either struck down by arbitrators or released by Chin after

entering into settlement agreements; that, in several cases, he

received proceeds from sales of marital property and did not

promptly disburse the funds owed to his clients; and, in at least one

matter, his client has still not received any funds from the sale of

her marital property. Moreover, Chin testified that he is now aware

that he must provide his clients with regular invoices, and admitted

that at the time he violated these Rules, he was “more about money

than helping people.”

Five of Chin’s former clients testified at the hearing, as well as

the ex-husband of one of his clients. These clients described the

emotional and financial impact of Chin’s misconduct, with several

explaining that they had to pursue arbitration in order to receive

from Chin the funds to which they were entitled, hire new attorneys

for their divorce actions, and pay additional attorney fees. Further,

8
several clients stated that they believed Chin’s misconduct delayed

the resolution of their divorces. One client testified that she initiated

the divorce proceeding because she was in an abusive marriage, that

the proceeds from the sale of her marital home were disbursed to

Chin for later distribution, and that she has yet to receive any of

these funds.

3. Special Master’s Report and Recommendation

(a) Factual Findings

Based on the factual allegations in the State Bar’s complaint—

which were deemed admitted by virtue of Chin’s default—the

Special Master recounted that Chin represented the client in State

Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) No. 7611 in a divorce action.

On August 7, 2020, the opposing party sent discovery requests to

Chin, but he failed to properly serve responses to the requests on

behalf of the client. Chin eventually provided partial responses after

receiving a “Rule 6.4 letter,” but he failed to respond to a subsequent

letter and the opposing party filed a motion to compel discovery.

Chin failed to respond to the motion and failed to inform the client

9
about the motion. On December 4, 2020, the opposing party filed a

motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, a motion to compel. Chin

failed to respond to the second motion or inform his client about this

motion. And, although the client attempted to contact Chin for

updates on her case multiple times between November 2020 and

January 2021, he failed to communicate with her. On February 12,

2021, the court placed the client’s case on a hearing calendar for

March 1, 2021. Chin did not inform the client about the hearing until

the morning it was scheduled. Chin and the client appeared for the

scheduled hearing, at which the court granted the motion to compel

and awarded attorney fees against Chin personally. On March 3,

2021, Chin filed a motion to withdraw from the client’s case, without

informing her of his intent to do so. On July 6, 2021, the opposing

party filed a motion for sanctions due to Chin’s failure to provide the

discovery requests and to pay the attorney fees as ordered by the

court. Chin did not respond or inform the client about the motion,

and ultimately the court allowed him to withdraw from representing

the client. Subsequently, the client filed a Petition for Fee

10
Arbitration with the State Bar and in June 2022, the client and Chin

entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Chin paid

the client $2,900 and released her from any financial obligations to

him for legal services.

For SDBD No. 7612, the Special Master recounted that Chin

represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.

In September 2018, the client’s marital property was sold, and a

portion of the proceeds was deposited into Chin’s trust account for

later distribution. After the final court order directing distribution,

Chin transferred the funds due to the opposing party from his trust

account to his operating account and then disbursed them. Per the

final order, his client was to receive $29,837.10 from the proceeds.

However, Chin sent a letter to the client informing her that he was

applying the funds to her outstanding legal fees. Chin’s total invoice

for his representation of the client from March 2018 to September

2019 was $31,124.80. This invoice contained duplicative billing, and

the client contacted Chin multiple times to discuss his fees and the

distribution of the proceeds. Chin failed to respond to the client’s

11
attempts to contact him, failed to provide her with an accounting of

the funds in his trust account despite her requests, and did not

disburse any funds to the client as he had disbursed them to himself

in payment of her invoice.

For SDBD No. 7613, the Special Master recounted that Chin

represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action

from April 30, 2020 to June 5, 2020, and September 30, 2020 to

January 8, 2021. On October 2, 2020, Chin failed to attend a court-

scheduled status conference and falsely told the client that the

status conference was cancelled. Chin also failed to complete

necessary discovery. During Chin’s four-and-a-half months of

representation, the client paid Chin $4,700 in attorney fees. The

client made repeated requests for invoices and a written agreement,

but Chin failed to provide any billing statements or invoices until

February 2021, at which point the client had terminated his

representation. This total invoice was for $15,410 and incorrectly

stated that the client had previously paid Chin only $3,800. The

invoice also contained duplicative billing and included fees for work

12
performed after the client had terminated Chin’s representation and

retained another attorney. Subsequently, Chin filed a lien against

the client for $11,610 for unpaid legal fees. The client filed a Petition

for Fee Arbitration with the State Bar and the parties entered a

settlement agreement, pursuant to which Chin executed a

cancellation and release of his lien, refunded $1,000 to the client,

and agreed to release the client from any financial obligation to him

for legal services.

For SDBD No. 7614, the Special Master recounted that Chin

represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a modification

and contempt action. The client had difficulty communicating with

Chin, and Chin failed to update the client on the status of the case.

On July 9, 2021, the client informed Chin that he was terminating

the representation. On July 12, 2021, the court entered an order

requiring the parties to conduct mediation within 45 days. Chin

failed to inform the client about the order, and on September 24,

2021, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. Subsequently, the client

filed a Petition for Fee Arbitration with the State Bar, and in May

13
2022, Chin and the client entered a settlement agreement, pursuant

to which Chin agreed to refund the client $1,650 and to complete

and obtain a full and final modification for the client within three

months for no further charges.

For SDBD No. 7615, the Special Master recounted that Chin

represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.

Pursuant to the engagement letter, the client was responsible for a

$2,500 initial retainer and a payment of $300 per month. The court

awarded the client $15,000 for attorney fees and to pay a forensic

accountant, which funds Chin deposited into his IOLTA account.

Chin failed to use the funds to pay the forensic accountant and

instead applied the funds to pay his invoices. Subsequently, the

client filed a Petition for Fee Arbitration with the State Bar, and the

arbitrators determined that Chin was entitled to keep $12,835.65 of

the $15,000. On June 3, 2021, the client terminated Chin’s

representation and requested her case file, itemized billing invoices,

and a refund of unearned fees. Chin did not respond, and the client

made similar requests on June 7, July 9, July 12, July 20, and July

14
26, 2021. Chin failed to respond to these requests and, instead, filed

a lien against the client for her remaining legal fees. The lien was

later removed by court order, upon the court finding that Chin did

not recover property for the client that would justify the lien.

For SDBD No. 7703, the Special Master recounted that Chin

represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.

During the representation, the proceeds from the sale of the client’s

marital home were transferred to Chin, who deposited the funds into

his operating account instead of his IOLTA account. The parties

subsequently reconciled, and the client requested that Chin dismiss

the divorce action. Chin did not dismiss the action until after the

client terminated his representation. The parties then executed a

reconciliation agreement, pursuant to which Chin was required to

disburse $46,430.88 of the proceeds from the sale to the client. Chin

failed to disburse the funds and failed to respond to the client’s

multiple attempts to contact him. On February 20, 2020, Chin

transferred $46,430.88 to his operating account for the client’s legal

fees, but did not inform the client that he was retaining the client’s

15
portion of the funds as payment. Chin also failed to provide the

client with an invoice or billing statement prior to transferring the

funds to his operating account and failed to provide an accounting of

the funds in his possession. Chin then provided a total invoice for

$52,459.21 for his 14 months of representation, which contained

duplicative billing and billing for work performed when Chin was

not representing the client. Subsequently, the client filed a fee

arbitration proceeding against Chin. Prior to the arbitration

hearing, the parties entered a settlement agreement, pursuant to

which Chin agreed to pay the client $32,500.

For SDBD No. 7704, the Special Master recounted that Chin

represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.

The court scheduled a final hearing on the matter and Chin failed to

consult with the client prior to or during the hearing. Further, Chin

was unprepared for the hearing and attempted to relitigate issues

that had already been determined. The court directed Chin to

prepare a draft final judgment and divorce decree for the court’s

consideration, and Chin told the client that he would send her a

16
draft for approval before submitting it to the court. However, Chin

submitted the draft before sending it to the client and without

obtaining the client’s approval, despite her requests for a copy of the

draft. On November 9, 2021, the court entered the final judgment

and decree that Chin had prepared. Pursuant to this judgment, the

client was required to refinance her home within six months and pay

her ex-husband $61,000 out of the refinance, and was responsible

for $11,871.32 incurred from the parties’ 2017 tax return. On

November 12, 2021, Chin and the client had a meeting by

videoconference, during which the client asked him to correct

certain errors in the drafted final judgment. Chin refused to make

any changes, as he had already submitted it to the court and the

court had already entered the judgment, and he requested that the

client pay him additional funds. The client terminated Chin’s

representation and requested that he provide her with her case file.

Chin failed to return the file. On November 22, 2021, Chin placed a

$7,500 lien on the marital home for legal services, which the client

discovered after she had listed the home for sale, as required by the

17
court order. The client then requested an invoice from Chin for his

one month of representation. Although Chin failed to provide the

client with an invoice or billing statement, she was able to obtain a

copy of the invoice from her closing attorney, which totaled

$14,663.50 and stated that the client had a balance of $13,163.50.

The invoice contained charges for work that Chin did not perform,

including charges from before he was retained as counsel, and

duplicative billing. Subsequently, the client filed an arbitration

claim and, although Chin agreed to participate in the arbitration, he

did not appear at the arbitration hearing or request a continuance.

On February 28, 2022, the arbitrator entered an award in the

client’s favor, finding that Chin violated his duty of care to the client,

that his invoice was not credible, that the client did not owe Chin

anything, that Chin’s lien violated the parties’ agreement, that the

lien was null and void, and that Chin was required to provide the

client her file. On March 3, 2022, Chin executed a cancellation of the

lien.

18
For SDBD No. 7704, the Special Master recounted that Chin

represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action.

The client sold the marital residence and, on April 13, 2021,

$269,982.76 in proceeds from the sale were deposited into Chin’s

IOLTA account. Between April and December 2021, Chin withdrew

for his attorney fees $118,246.70 of the funds from the sale.

Although Chin was required to hold $202,749.02 for the client’s ex-

husband and other third parties, by the end of December 2021, the

balance from the proceeds was $151,736.06. On March 7, 2022, the

court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce, which provided

how Chin was to disburse the funds and ordered that he make the

disbursements within five days. Chin did not disburse the funds

owed to the client’s ex-husband until March 15, 2022, at which time

he transferred funds from his operating account to cover the

shortfall in his IOLTA account.

(b) Rule Violations

Pursuant to Chin’s default, the Special Maser concluded that,

in SDBD No. 7611, Chin violated Rules 1.2 (a) by failing to

19
communicate with the client about her case and consult with her

about the scope and objections of his representation; 1.3 by failing

to act promptly and diligently in his representation; 1.4 (a) by failing

to keep the client informed about her case and failing to respond to

her requests for information; 1.6 (d) by failing to notify the client

that he was withdrawing from representation and failing to refund

unearned fees; and 3.2 by failing to respond to discovery requests

and court orders.

In SDBD No. 7612, the Special Master found that Chin violated

Rules 1.4 (a) by failing to respond to the client’s communications and

requests for an accounting of the funds; 1.5 (a) by charging the client

an unreasonable fee; 1.15 (I) (c) and (d) by failing to promptly deliver

the funds from the sale of the marital home and applying the funds

to his bills; and 1.15 (II) (a) by disbursing funds owed from his

operating account instead of his IOLTA account.

In SDBD No. 7613, the Special Master concluded that Chin

violated Rules 1.3 by failing to act promptly and diligently in his

representation of the client; 1.4 (a) by failing to inform the client

20
about the status conference and telling the client that the conference

was cancelled; 1.5 (a) by charging an unreasonable fee; and 3.2 by

failing to conduct necessary discovery.

In SDBD No. 7614, the Special Master concluded that Chin

violated Rules 1.4 (a) by failing to communicate with the client and

keep him updated on the status of the case; and 1.16 (c) and (d) by

failing to properly withdraw from representation and failing to

refund unearned fees.

In SDBD No. 7615, the Special Master concluded that Chin

violated Rules 1.3 by failing to pay the forensic accountant from the

fees awarded by the court; 1.4 (a) by failing to respond to the client’s

communications and request for invoices and her case file; 1.5 (a) by

charging an unreasonable fee; and 1.15 (I) (c) and (d) by failing to

provide an accounting and applying the funds awarded by the court

for the forensic accountant to his bills.

In SDBD No. 7703, the Special Master concluded that Chin

violated Rules 1.2 (a) by failing to consult with the client about the

disbursement of funds; 1.3 by failing to act promptly and diligently

21
in his representation; 1.4 (a) by failing to communicate with the

client and respond to his request for information regarding

disbursement of the funds and closure of the case; 1.5 (a) by charging

an unreasonable fee; 1.15 (I) (a) and (d) by failing to hold funds owed

to a client separate from his own funds; and 1.15 (II) (a) by failing to

administer client funds from a trust account.

In SDBD No. 7704, the Special Master concluded that Chin

violated Rules 1.2 (a) by failing to consult with the client about the

scope and objective of his representation and failing to provide her

with a draft of the final divorce decree before submitting it to the

court; 1.3 by failing to act promptly and diligently in his

representation of the client; 1.4 (a) by failing to communicate with

the client and respond to her requests for a draft of the divorce

decree and a billing statement; 1.5 (a) and (b) by charging an

unreasonable fee and failing to provide an invoice prior to filing a

lien on the client’s property; 1.8 (a), (b), and (j) and 8.4 (a) by filing

a lien on his client’s property without providing notice to the client;

22
and 1.16 (d) by failing to return the client’s file after she terminated

his representation.

In SDBD No. 7705, the Special Master concluded that Chin

violated Rules 1.15 (I) (a) by failing to safeguard fiduciary funds,

failing to hold fiduciary funds separate from his own funds, and

failing to maintain complete records of such funds; 1.15 (I) (c) by

failing to promptly deliver the client’s ex-husband’s funds in his

possession; 1.15 (II) (a) by failing to administer fiduciary funds from

a trust account; and 1.15 (II) (b) by commingling personal and

fiduciary funds.

(c) American Bar Association Standards

After discussing his factual findings and conclusions of law as

to the Rules violated, the Special Master cited the framework set out

in the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) (“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

23
mitigating factors.” See In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653

(470 SE2d 232) (1996). The Special Master then proceeded to

determine Chin’s mental state at the time he committed these

violations, and determined that—with the exception of his violations

of Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and (d), 1.15 (II) (a) and (b), and 1.3 in connection

with SDBD No. 7615—Chin’s mental state for all other violations

was either negligent or, alternatively, that Chin’s mental state was

“not shown to be intentional or knowing.” In assessing the potential

or actual injury caused by Chin’s misconduct, the Special Master

determined that Chin’s violations regarding charging unreasonable

fees and using client funds to pay them, failing to respond to

discovery requests and attend hearings, and not paying the forensic

accountant in SDBD No. 7615 had the potential to cause injury to

his clients, but that in none of the eight matters did Chin’s conduct

cause actual injury.

The Special Master then determined that, in aggravation, Chin

had a selfish motive, based on his “charging of unreasonable fees

and resulting conduct”; displayed a pattern of misconduct, as he

24
engaged in a pattern of neglect, overbilling, and failure to properly

handle funds in his clients’ cases; and committed multiple offenses,

as he was charged with multiple Rule violations in eight separate

client matters. See ABA Standard 9.22 (b), (c), and (d). The Special

Master further determined that Chin’s lack of a prior disciplinary

record was “the sole mitigating factor in these matters.” See ABA

Standard 9.32 (a).

(d) Recommended Discipline

The Special Master then concluded that an 18-month

suspension from the practice of law, with the condition that, prior to

reinstatement, Chin complete the State Bar’s Law Practice

Management Program, was the appropriate sanction. In doing so,

he cited ABA Standard 4.12, which provides that “[s]uspension is

generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should know that he

is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or

potential injury to a client.”

4. The Review Board’s Report and Recommendation

25
The State Bar filed exceptions before the Review Board to the

Special Master’s report and recommendation. The State Bar argued

that the Special Master erred in determining that Chin’s mental

state was negligent for the majority of his Rule violations; that the

Special Master erred in determining that Chin’s violations did not

cause actual injury to his clients; that the Special Master erred in

failing to apply as aggravating factors Standards 9.22 (h)

(vulnerability of the victim) and 9.22 (i) (substantial experience in

the practice of law); and that disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

Upon its review, the Review Board concluded that the Special

Master’s factual findings as to what occurred in the eight

disciplinary cases were supported by the record and his conclusions

of law as to the Rules violated were correct, but that the Special

Master’s analysis of the ABA factors was “lacking, if not absent, in

most of the analysis” and that his determinations as to Chin’s

mental state and the injury his conduct caused was clear error and

unsupported by the record. The Review Board then concluded that

Chin’s mental state was, at a minimum, knowing; that his violations

26
caused actual injury to his clients; that the two additional

aggravating factors presented by the State Bar applied; and that

disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case.

5. The Parties’ Arguments before this Court

Chin filed exceptions in this Court to the Review Board’s report

and recommendation, arguing that the Special Master properly

analyzed Chin’s mental state and determined that it was one of

negligence in most instances; that the Special Master properly

assessed the potential or actual injury caused by Chin’s actions and

determined that Chin’s violations did not cause any actual injury to

his clients; that ABA Standard 9.22 (h) should not be considered in

aggravation; and that the Special Master’s recommendation of an

18-month suspension is appropriate. In response, the State Bar

maintains that the Special Master’s determinations as to Chin’s

mental state and the injury caused by his violations were clear error

and unsupported by the record, and that the Review Board’s

recommendation of disbarment is appropriate.

6. Analysis
27
(a) Standard of Review

We note at the outset that “because this Court recognizes that

the special master is in the best position to determine the witnesses’

credibility, it generally defers to the factual findings and credibility

determinations made by the special master unless those findings or

determinations are clearly erroneous.” In the Matter of Tuggle, 317

Ga. 255, 258 (2) (892 SE2d 761) (2023) (emphasis in original). This

Court will not, however, defer to clearly erroneous fact findings that

are unsupported by the record. And we afford no such deference to

the conclusions of law made by the Special Master or the Review

Board, reviewing de novo what rules were violated and what level of

discipline is appropriate. Tuggle, 317 Ga. at 258 (2).

(b) ABA Standards

We agree with the Special Master’s factual findings and

conclusions of law as to the Rules violated, all of which were deemed

admitted by virtue of Chin’s default. However, we agree with the

Review Board and the State Bar that the Special Master’s analysis

of the ABA Standards is lacking and that the Special Master clearly

28
erred in his determinations as to Chin’s mental state and the

injuries caused to his clients by his violations of the GRPC. While

the framework in the ABA Standards is not controlling, it is

“generally instructive as to the question of punishment.” See In the

Matter of Cook, 311 Ga. 206, 213 (3) (a) (857 SE2d 212) (2021). As

mentioned above, this framework includes examining (1) the duty

violated; (2) the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the potential or actual

injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and (4) the existence of

aggravating or mitigating factors. See ABA Standard 3.0.

Duties Violated. Although the Special Master omitted from his

report and recommendation any analysis of the duties Chin violated

through his GRPC violations, based on the record before us—which

includes the Special Master’s factual findings and conclusions of

law—we determine that Chin violated several duties owed to his

clients, including his duty of diligence, as prescribed in Rule 1.3; his

duty of communication, as prescribed in Rule 1.4; his duty to avoid

conflicts of interest, as prescribed in Rule 1.8; his duty to safeguard

client property, as prescribed in Rule 1.15; his duties upon

29
termination of representation, as prescribed in Rule 1.16; and his

duty of candor, as prescribed in Rule 8.4. See Tuggle, 317 Ga. at 273

(6) (b) (determining, upon review of the record, that attorney

“violated his duties of communication, his duties upon termination

of representation, and his obligation not to enter agreements

conditioned on dismissal of a pending disciplinary complaint”).

Additionally, Chin violated his duty owed to the public to maintain

personal integrity by failing to timely disburse funds owed to an

opposing party. See ABA Standard 5.1.

Mental State. Although non-binding, the ABA Standards

define “negligence” as “the failure of a lawyer to heed a substantial

risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which is a

deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would

exercise in the situation; “knowledge” as “the conscious awareness

of the nature or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without

the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result”;

and “intent” as “the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a

particular result.” ABA Standards, “Definitions.”

30
The Special Master concluded that—with the exception of his

violations of Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and (d), 1.15 (II) (a) and (b), and 1.3

for SDBD No. 7615—Chin’s mental state for all other violations was

either negligent or, alternatively, “not shown to be intentional or

knowing.” Our review, however, shows that the Special Master

clearly erred in making some of his factual findings as to Chin’s

mental state. With respect to SDBD No. 7611, the record shows that

Chin was aware of opposing counsel’s discovery requests and the

court-ordered attorney fees awarded against him, yet he failed to

respond to the discovery requests or pay the attorney fees as

ordered. In SDBD No. 7612, the record shows that Chin transferred

proceeds from the sale of the marital property from his trust account

to his operating account and made the decision not to disburse any

funds owed to his client. In SDBD No. 7613, the record shows that

Chin lied to his client by telling him that the conference was

cancelled after he failed to attend it. In SDBD No. 7614, the record

shows that Chin was aware that the client terminated his

representation, yet Chin did not properly withdraw as counsel until

31
more than two months later. In SDBD No. 7615, the record shows

that Chin failed to pay the forensic accountant as ordered by the

court and, instead, disbursed the funds for the accountant to himself

and, rather than responding to the client’s request for her case file

and invoices, filed a lien against her for additional fees. In SDBD

No. 7703, the record shows that Chin received funds from the sale of

the marital property, transferred the funds from his IOLTA account

into his operating account, and did not promptly dismiss the divorce

action as requested by the client until after he had been terminated.

In SDBD No. 7704, the record shows that Chin was aware that he

was supposed to provide a draft of the divorce decree to the client

before submitting it to the court yet failed to do so. Moreover, Chin

was aware that the client later terminated his representation and

requested her case file, yet he failed to provide her with the file and,

instead, placed a lien on her home. In SDBD No. 7705, the record

shows that Chin commingled funds and withdrew for his own use

funds owed to his client’s ex-husband. Thus, we reject the Special

Master’s determination that most of Chin’s misconduct in these

32
eight disciplinary matters was committed with mere negligence

because the record belies that finding and instead agree with the

Review Board that the undisputed facts in the record show that Chin

acted knowingly in all eight matters.

Actual or Potential Injury. The ABA Standards define “injury”

as “harm to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession

which results from a lawyer’s misconduct,” and “potential injury” as

“the harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession

that is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer’s misconduct,

and which, but for some intervening factor or event, would probably

have resulted from the lawyer’s misconduct.” ABA Standards,

“Definitions.”

The Special Master determined that Chin’s conduct in all eight

matters did not cause any actual injury, and that only a few of his

violations had the potential to cause injury. Here, the record and

many of the Special Master’s factual findings, however, do

demonstrate both actual and potential injury to Chin’s clients. With

respect to SDBD Nos. 7611, 7613, 7614, 7615, 7703, and 7704, the

33
record shows that the clients had to spend time and money to pursue

arbitration in order to obtain a refund from Chin of unearned fees

or in order to remove the lien Chin had filed against them. In SDBD

Nos. 7613, 7703, and 7704, for example, several of the clients were

billed for duplicative work and others were charged for work

performed before Chin was retained or after his representation had

been terminated. Moreover, several of these clients testified at the

evidentiary hearing about the emotional and financial impact of

Chin’s misconduct, with one client explaining that he “created a lot

of stress, worries, fear, and anxiety,” another client stating that her

experience with Chin left her “emotionally scarred,” and a third

client testifying that she felt that she hired Chin to do a job and he

did “just the opposite.” With respect to SDBD No. 7612, the record

shows that the client’s invoice contained duplicative billing and that

the client has yet to receive any of the proceeds from the sale of her

marital home, as Chin testified that he has not provided any

restitution to this client. Moreover, at the evidentiary hearing, the

client in this matter testified that Chin’s failure to disburse the

34
funds took a great toll on her financially, as she had hoped to use

the funds to take care of her daughter’s expenses. With respect to

SDBD No. 7705, the record shows that Chin failed to timely disburse

the funds owed to his client’s ex-husband, which at the very least

had the potential to cause financial injury. Thus, we reject the

Special Master’s determination that Chin’s misconduct did not

cause actual injury and agree with the Review Board that Chin’s

misconduct caused actual injury in most of these cases and potential

for injury in the other cases.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. We agree with the Special

Master’s determination that the sole mitigating factor in this case is

Chin’s lack of a prior discipline history, and we note that Chin does

not argue that any other mitigating factors are applicable. We also

agree with the Special Master that, in aggravation, Chin had a

selfish motive, displayed a pattern of misconduct, and committed

multiple offenses, and with the Review Board that, based on the

record, the vulnerability of the victims and Chin’s substantial

experience in the practice of law should be considered in

35
aggravation. See In the Matter of Melnick, 319 Ga. 730, 738 (5) (905

SE2d 645) (2024) (“[W]hether the facts constitute an aggravating or

mitigating factor is a matter we consider de novo.”). The evidence is

undisputed that these clients were in the midst of divorces and some

of the clients were litigating custody issues over their minor

children. See In The Matter of Barksdale, 318 Ga. 150, 154-155 (897

SE2d 415) (2024) (vulnerability of victim considered in aggravation

where client hired attorney to represent her in a contentious

modification of child custody action). Further, Chin testified at the

evidentiary hearing that he has “substantial experience in the

practice of law.” In considering these mitigating and aggravating

factors, we note that, on balance, the applicable aggravating factors

substantially outweigh the fact that Chin had no prior discipline

history.

(c) Appropriate Level of Discipline

To recap, the record in this case establishes that Chin violated

Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (a), 1.5 (a), 1.5 (b), 1.8 (a), 1.8 (b), 1.8 (j), 1.15

(I) (a), 1.15 (I) (c), 1.15 (I) (d), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.15 (II) (b), 1.16 (c), 1.16

36
(d), 3.2, and 8.4 (a) (4) in connection with eight client matters. In our

consideration of the factors relevant to assigning discipline we have

concluded that Chin violated the duties of diligence, communication,

and candor, as well as his duties to avoid conflicts of interest, to

safeguard client property, and upon termination of representation.

Further, we have determined that the Special Master clearly erred

in making the factual findings that Chin acted only negligently and

that his actions did not cause actual injury to his clients because

those findings were unsupported by the record. We also conclude

that the aggravating factors significantly outweigh the sole

mitigating factor.

In considering Chin’s several violations, the ABA framework,

and our previous case law concerning similar violations, we agree

with the Review Board that the Special Master’s recommendation of

an 18-month suspension is insufficient, and that disbarment is the

appropriate sanction for Chin’s misconduct. See In the Matter of

Proctor, 313 Ga. 637 (872 SE2d 691) (2022) (disbarring lawyer, who

had no prior discipline history, for violating Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (a),

37
1.15 (I) (d), 1.16 (d), and 9.3 in connection with three client matters);

In the Matter of Power, 314 Ga. 504 (877 SE2d 601) (2022)

(disbarring lawyer, who had no prior discipline history, for violating

Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.15 (III), 1.16 (d) and

9.3 in three client matters). See also ABA Standards 4.11

(disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly

converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a

client); 4.41 (b) (disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer

knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or

potentially serious injury to a client); 4.61 (disbarment is generally

appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client and causes

serious injury or potential serious injury to a client).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Justin Allen

Chin be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law

in the State of Georgia. Chin is reminded of his duties under Bar

Rule 4-219 (b).

Disbarred. Peterson, C.J., Warren, P.J., and Bethel, Ellington,
McMillian, LaGrua, Colvin, and Pinson, JJ., concur.

38