In the Matter of Wendy R. Barnes

320 Ga. 589
FINAL COPY

S25Y0078. IN THE MATTER OF WENDY R. BARNES.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and

Recommendation of Special Master Chong J. Kim, filed pursuant to

Bar Rule 4-106 (e). The Special Master recommends that we disbar

Respondent Wendy R. Barnes1 (State Bar No. 744854), because her

three felony convictions violate Rule 8.4 (a) (2)2 of the Georgia Rules

of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d).

Barnes has not excepted to the recommendation. See Bar Rule 4-

218.

We agree that disbarment is appropriate given the facts of this

case.

1 Barnes is also known as Wendy R. Webb.

2 Rule 8.4 (a) (2) provides that “[i]t shall be a violation of the [GRPC] for

a lawyer to . . . be convicted of a felony.”
The record shows that in January 2022, Barnes entered a

guilty plea in the Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia, to two

counts of felony obstruction of a law enforcement officer — both

counts for resisting arrest — and one count of felony aggravated

battery, for injuring one of the arresting officers.3 The superior court

sentenced Barnes pursuant to the First Offender Act to a total of ten

years to serve one. Upon learning of Barnes’s conviction, the State

Bar filed a petition to initiate disciplinary proceedings pursuant to

Bar Rule 4-106 (establishing a shortened timeframe for disciplinary

proceedings based on an attorney’s conviction of a crime); this Court

appointed a Special Master; and the Bar personally served Barnes

with the petition and the order of appointment.

Although Barnes was consulted about, and notified of, the date

of the show cause hearing, she failed to appear. At the hearing, the

Bar introduced a certified copy of the convictions and introduced

other documents from the underlying criminal case. Thereafter, the

3 Barnes also pleaded guilty to failure to maintain lane and driving under

the influence, both misdemeanors, which we do not consider here.
Special Master issued her Report and Recommendation,

determining that Barnes received proper notice and had actual

knowledge of the hearing, and that Barnes was afforded due process

regarding this matter. The Special Master concluded that the Bar

had established the three felony convictions, and ruled that because

of those convictions, Barnes violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2), for which the

maximum penalty is disbarment.

The Special Master further concluded that Barnes’s

convictions for felony obstruction and aggravated battery involved

the “violent criminal act” of obstructing law enforcement officers “in

the lawful discharge of [their] official duties,” which includes as a

“necessary element” intentional interference “with the

administration of justice,” and which resulted in “actual physical

injury” to one of the officers. Therefore, the Special Master

determined that the presumptive penalty for Barnes’s conduct was

disbarment. See ABA Standard 5.11 (disbarment generally

appropriate when a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a
necessary element of which includes intentional interference with

the administration of justice).4

The Special Master considered, in aggravation of penalty, that

Barnes had substantial experience in the practice of law. See ABA

Standard 9.22 (i). The Special Master considered, in mitigation of

penalty, the absence of a prior disciplinary history and the absence

of evidence of a dishonest or selfish motive. See ABA Standards 9.32

(a) and (b). Considering these additional factors, the Special Master

concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for

Barnes’s violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2).

Neither party requested review by the Review Board or filed

exceptions to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation.

Therefore, the matter is ripe for this Court’s consideration.

“[D]isbarment is considered the typical level of discipline

imposed in cases like this one[,] involving violent felonies[.]” In re

4 This Court looks “to the [ABA’s] standards for guidance in determining

the appropriate sanction to impose,” and “[a]mong the factors to consider are
the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the injury caused by the lawyer’s
misconduct, and the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors.” In the
Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996).
Ortman, 289 Ga. 130, 130 (709 SE2d 784) (2011). See In re Collins,

263 Ga. 185, 185-186 (429 SE2d 908) (1993) (disbarring for

conviction of one count of aggravated assault). Compare In the

Matter of Hawbaker, 314 Ga. 77, 78 (872 SE2d 690) (2022) (accepting

voluntary surrender of a bar license for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (2)

following guilty pleas to five felony counts of aggravated assault of

a police officer). 5

Likewise, disbarment is an appropriate sanction in matters

involving felony convictions for crimes of interference with the

administration of justice, in this case felony obstruction of police.

See In the Matter of Hutto, 292 Ga. 556, 556 (739 SE2d 385) (2013)

(disbarring for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (2) based on a federal felony

conviction for withholding information on a crime). Compare In re

Gardner, 286 Ga. 623, 624 (690 SE2d 611) (2010) (accepting

voluntary surrender of license for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (3) based on

misdemeanor obstruction of police by giving false information to the

5 Voluntary surrender of a law license “is tantamount to disbarment.” In

the Matter of Van Johnson, 319 Ga. 627, 632 (4) (905 SE2d 625) (2024).
GBI during an interview). Having reviewed the record, which we

again note contains no argument or evidence from Barnes, we agree

with the Special Master that disbarment is the appropriate sanction

here. Accordingly, we hereby order that the name of Wendy R.

Barnes be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice

law in the State of Georgia. Barnes is reminded of her duties

pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

Decided December 20, 2024.

Disbarment.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D.

NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, William V.

Hearnburg, Jr., Andreea N. Morrison, Assistant General Counsel

State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.

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: December 20, 2024

S25Y0078. IN THE MATTER OF WENDY R. BARNES.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and

Recommendation of Special Master Chong J. Kim, filed pursuant to

Bar Rule 4-106 (e). The Special Master recommends that we disbar

Respondent Wendy R. Barnes1 (State Bar No. 744854), because her

three felony convictions violate Rule 8.4 (a) (2)2 of the Georgia Rules

of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d).

Barnes has not excepted to the recommendation. See Bar Rule 4-

218.

1 Barnes is also known as Wendy R. Webb.

2 Rule 8.4 (a) (2) provides that “[i]t shall be a violation of the [GRPC] for

a lawyer to . . . be convicted of a felony.”
We agree that disbarment is appropriate given the facts of this

case.

The record shows that in January 2022, Barnes entered a

guilty plea in the Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia to two

counts of felony obstruction of a law enforcement officer – both

counts for resisting arrest – and one count of felony aggravated

battery, for injuring one of the arresting officers.3 The superior court

sentenced Barnes pursuant to the First Offender Act to a total of ten

years to serve one. Upon learning of Barnes’s conviction, the State

Bar filed a petition to initiate disciplinary proceedings pursuant to

Bar Rule 4-106 (establishing a shortened timeframe for disciplinary

proceedings based on an attorney’s conviction of a crime); this Court

appointed a Special Master; and the Bar personally served Barnes

with the petition and the order of appointment.

Although Barnes was consulted about, and notified of, the date

of the show cause hearing, she failed to appear. At the hearing, the

3 Barnes also pleaded guilty to failure to maintain lane and driving under

the influence, both misdemeanors, which we do not consider here.
Bar introduced a certified copy of the convictions and introduced

other documents from the underlying criminal case. Thereafter, the

Special Master issued her Report and Recommendation,

determining that Barnes received proper notice and had actual

knowledge of the hearing, and that Barnes was afforded due process

regarding this matter. The Special Master concluded that the Bar

had established the three felony convictions, and ruled that because

of those convictions, Barnes violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2), for which the

maximum penalty is disbarment.

The Special Master further concluded that Barnes’s

convictions for felony obstruction and aggravated battery involved

the “violent criminal act” of obstructing law enforcement officers “in

the lawful discharge of [their] official duties,” which includes as a

“necessary element” intentional interference “with the

administration of justice,” and which resulted in “actual physical

injury” to one of the officers. Therefore, the Special Master

determined that the presumptive penalty for Barnes’s conduct was

disbarment. See ABA Standard 5.11 (disbarment generally
appropriate when a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a

necessary element of which includes intentional interference with

the administration of justice).4

The Special Master considered, in aggravation of penalty, that

Barnes had substantial experience in the practice of law. See ABA

Standard 9.22 (i). The Special Master considered, in mitigation of

penalty, the absence of a prior disciplinary history and the absence

of evidence of a dishonest or selfish motive. See ABA Standards 9.32

(a) and (b). Considering these additional factors, the Special Master

concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for

Barnes’s violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2).

Neither party requested review by the Review Board or filed

exceptions to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation.

Therefore, the matter is ripe for this Court’s consideration.

4 This Court looks “to the [ABA’s] standards for guidance in determining

the appropriate sanction to impose,” and “[a]mong the factors to consider are
the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the injury caused by the lawyer’s
misconduct, and the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors.” In the
Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996).
“[D]isbarment is considered the typical level of discipline

imposed in cases like this one[,] involving violent felonies[.]” In re

Ortman, 289 Ga. 130, 131 (709 SE2d 764) (2011) (citation omitted).

See In re Collins, 263 Ga. 185, 185-186 (429 SE2d 908) (1993)

(disbarring for conviction of one count of aggravated assault).

Compare In the Matter of Hawbaker, 314 Ga. 77, 78 (872 SE2d 690)

(2022) (accepting voluntary surrender of a bar license for violating

Rule 8.4 (a) (2) following guilty pleas to five felony counts of

aggravated assault of a police officer). 5

Likewise, disbarment is an appropriate sanction in matters

involving felony convictions for crimes of interference with the

administration of justice, in this case felony obstruction of police.

See In the Matter of Hutto, 292 Ga. 556, 556 (739 SE2d 385) (2013)

(disbarring for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (2) based on a federal felony

conviction for withholding information on a crime). Compare In Re

5 Voluntary surrender of a law license “is tantamount to disbarment.” In

the Matter of Van Johnson, 319 Ga. 627, 632 (4) (905 SE2d 625) (2024) (citation
omitted)
Gardner, 286 Ga. 623, 624 (690 SE2d 611) (2010) (accepting

voluntary surrender of license for violating Rule 8.4 (a) (3) based on

misdemeanor obstruction of police by giving false information to the

GBI during an interview). Having reviewed the record, which we

again note contains no argument or evidence from Barnes, we agree

with the Special Master that disbarment is the appropriate sanction

here. Accordingly, we hereby order that the name of Wendy R.

Barnes be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice

law in the State of Georgia. Barnes is reminded of her duties

pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.