In the Matter of Samuel David Ozburn

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. S26Y0523
In the Matter of Samuel David Ozburn

Decided: June 16, 2026

PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court on the report and
recommendation of Special Master William T. Davis, who
recommends that this Court accept the petition for voluntary
surrender of license filed by respondent Samuel David Ozburn
(State Bar No. 813522). In his petition, Ozburn, who has been a
member of the Bar since 2010, admitted that he violated the
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”), see Bar Rule 4-
102(d), with respect to a number of client matters.
In one matter, Ozburn admitted that after the client hired
him to help her obtain guardianship of her grandchildren and
paid part of his fee, he failed to respond to her inquiries, to file a
guardianship petition in a prompt manner, or to respond to the
Bar when it notified him that it was investigating his conduct in
the matter. In these regards, Ozburn acknowledged that he
violated Rules 1.4(a), 1 1.5, 2 and 9.3. 3 The maximum penalty for
violating each of these Rules is a public reprimand.
Regarding the other matters, Ozburn admitted that in
serving as the closing attorney for two lenders in 16 real estate
transactions, he falsely represented to his clients and other
parties that he was an authorized agent of a title insurance
company; falsely represented to his clients and other parties that
he had secured title insurance with respect to the properties at
issue; and received the client funds that would have gone to the
title insurer. In these regards, he acknowledged that he violated
Rules 1.4(a), 4.1(a), 4 and 8.4(a)(4). 5 As noted above, the maximum
penalty for violating Rule 1.4 is a public reprimand; the
maximum penalty for violating Rules 4.1(a) and 8.4(a)(4) is
disbarment.
Based on these admissions, Ozburn asked this Court to

1 Rule 1.4(a) states, in relevant part, “A lawyer shall: (1) promptly
inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the
client’s informed consent … is required … (2) reasonably consult with the client
about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; [and]
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” (line breaks
omitted)).
2 Rule 1.5(a) states that lawyers “shall not make an agreement for,
charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for
expenses.”
3 Rule 9.3 states, “During the investigation of a matter pursuant to
these Rules, the lawyer complained against shall respond to disciplinary
authorities in accordance with State Bar Rules.”
4 Rule 4.1(a) states, “In the course of representing a client a lawyer
shall not knowingly … make a false statement of material fact or law to a third
person.”
5 Rule 8.4(a)(4) states that lawyers violate the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct when they “engage in professional conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

2
allow him to voluntarily surrender his license to practice law,
which is tantamount to disbarment. See Rule 1.0(u). In its
response to Ozburn’s petition, the Bar requested that the petition
be accepted, and, as noted, the Special Master likewise
recommends that we accept the petition.
Having reviewed the record, we accept Ozburn’s petition,
as the requested disposition is consistent with our precedent. See,
e.g., In the Matter of Moses, 299 Ga. 664, 664 (2016) (accepting
petition for voluntary surrender of license: attorney admitted that
he violated Rule 8.4(a)(4) by directly invoicing firm’s clients,
contravening his firm’s policy, and accepting payments directly
from clients that should have been submitted to firm).
Accordingly, the name of Samuel David Ozburn is removed
from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of
Georgia. Ozburn is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-
219(b).
Voluntary surrender of license accepted. All the Justices
concur.

3