IN THE MATTER OF STANLEY J. KAKOL, JR.

In the
Supreme Court of Georgia
No. S26Y1842
In the Matter of Stanely J. Kakol, Jr.
Decided: October 14, 2026
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition
for voluntary surrender of license filed by Stanley J. Kakol, Jr.
(Bar No. 406060) after the filing of a formal complaint. See Bar
Rule 4-227(c)(2). Kakol, who has been a member of the State Bar
since 1985, admits, for purposes of this petition only, that in con-
nection with three matters he has violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and
1.7 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC”) found
in Bar Rule 4-102(d). The maximum penalty for a violation of each
of these Rules is disbarment.
In regard to State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”)
number 7987, Kakol admits the following. A homeowner’s resi-
dence was scheduled for a foreclosure sale. The homeowner’s wife
passed away the previous year, the home was titled solely in her
name, and her death caused a default in the reverse mortgage,
leading to foreclosure proceedings. Having received numerous
mailings and calls regarding the impending foreclosure, the
homeowner met with a third-party company to discuss his desire
to remain in his home. The third party informed the homeowner
that it could save his home and had him execute paperwork,
which the homeowner believed would stop the foreclosure. The

2
documents required the homeowner to file for bankruptcy and
probate his wife’s estate. The third party reached out to Kakol’s
firm, explained its relationship with the homeowner, and re-
tained Kakol’s services for the homeowner’s representation. Dur-
ing the conversation, the third party informed Kakol it would pay
for the representation and that it had a contract to purchase the
home. Kakol, the third party, and the homeowner then had a tel-
ephone conversation. The homeowner expressed his goal of bank-
ruptcy to stop the foreclosure so he could remain in his home.
On December 4, 2022, Kakol filed the Chapter 13 bank-
ruptcy petition. Due to deficiencies in the filing, the court gave a
deadline to correct the filings. However, Kakol failed to file any
corrective filings and the bankruptcy case was dismissed. After
the home was again scheduled for foreclosure, Kakol, the third
party, and the homeowner had another teleconference to discuss
the filing of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The third party
paid Kakol for the homeowner’s second petition, and that same
day, Kakol filed a “skeletal” petition in bankruptcy court. The
court again set a deadline for Kakol to cure all deficiencies, but
he failed to do so, and on March 20, 2023, the second bankruptcy
filing was dismissed. For purposes of this petition, Kakol admits

3
that based on his misconduct, he violated Rules 1.1,1 1.2,2 1.3,3
and 1.7.4
Next, with regard to SDBD No. 7988, Kakol admits the fol-
lowing. On December 5, 2022, a client retained Kakol in hopes of
delaying the foreclosure of his home. That same day, Kakol filed
the bankruptcy petition. On December 16, 2022, Kakol filed a Mo-
1 Providing that, “[a] lawyer shall provide competent representation to
a client. Competent representation as used in this rule means that a lawyer
shall not handle a matter which the lawyer knows or should know to be beyond
the lawyer's level of competence without associating another lawyer who the
original lawyer reasonably believes to be competent to handle the matter in
question. Competence requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
2 Providing that, “[s]ubject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall
abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representa-
tion and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means
by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of
the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. … (c) [a]
lawyer may limit the scope and objectives of the representation if the limitation
is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
(d) … a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of
conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith
effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law.”
3 Providing that, “[a] lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a cli-
ent despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer,
and may take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate
a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer should act with commitment and dedi-
cation to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's
behalf. However, a lawyer is not bound to press for every advantage that might
be realized for a client. A lawyer has professional discretion in determining the
means by which a matter should be pursued.”
4 Providing that, “[a] lawyer shall not represent or continue to repre-
sent a client if there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s own interests or the
lawyer's duties to another client, a former client, or a third person will materi-
ally and adversely affect the representation of the client.”

4
tion to Impose Stay, which was granted. However, the client con-
tinued to receive harassing phone calls from his mortgage lender
in violation of the automatic stay. The mortgage lender filed a
motion for relief and a hearing was set but then later continued.
Kakol failed to respond to the motion for relief. At the scheduled
hearing, both Kakol and his client appeared and testified. Follow-
ing the hearing, the bankruptcy court scheduled a show-cause
hearing, and during that hearing, the court determined that
Kakol violated the bankruptcy court’s General Order 42-2020, re-
garding specific requirements for attorney-client communication
in a bankruptcy proceeding. Kakol admits that, by the foregoing,
he violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3.
Finally, with regard to SDBD No. 7989, Kakol admits the
following. A couple hired Kakol to represent them in 2023 in a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy to stop the foreclosure of their home. The
same day as being retained, Kakol filed a skeletal Chapter 13
bankruptcy petition. An order was filed setting deadlines for the
couple to correct filing deficiencies. However, Kakol failed to
make any corrective filings. The bankruptcy case was dismissed
due to filing deficiencies not being corrected. Upon learning of the
dismissal, Kakol filed a motion to reconsider and a hearing was
scheduled for November 9, 2023. However, the couple’s lender
served notice of a new foreclosure date for Tuesday, November 7,
2023, the couple’s home was subsequently foreclosed upon, and
Kakol then withdrew his motion to reconsider. Kakol admits, by
the foregoing, that he violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3.
The State Bar has responded – addressing the matter
within the context of the American Bar Association’s Standards
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, see In the Matter of Morse, 266
Ga. 652, 653 (1996) – and asks this Court to accept the petition.
The State Bar contends that Kakol’s petition contains admissions

5
of fact and conduct sufficient to authorize the imposition of the
discipline he has requested and meets the objectives set forth by
this Court in In the Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488, 493 (1981)
(holding that the appropriate sanction in a disciplinary matter
serves as “a penalty to the offender, a deterrent to others, and as
an indication to laymen that the courts will maintain the ethics
of the profession”). The State Bar also notes that Kakol has been
disciplined four times in the past, including a public reprimand
in 1994,5 a three-year suspension in 1998, a letter of admonition
in 2007, and a Review Panel reprimand in 2010 for admitted vio-
lations of Rules 1.15(II) and 8.4(a)(4). See In the Matter of Kakol,
286 Ga. 469, 470 (2010).
Having reviewed the petition and the State Bar’s response,
we accept Kakol’s Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License,
which is tantamount to disbarment. See Rule 1.0(u). This resolu-
tion is consistent with prior similar cases. See, e.g., In the Matter
of Fleming, 317 Ga. 720, 724 (2023) (accepting petition for volun-
tary surrender of license from attorney who, among other things,
violated Rule 1.7(a) by representing client at the behest of client’s
employer and colluding with employer to steal client’s settlement
funds); In the Matter of Farnham, 313 Ga. 801, 802 (2022) (accept-
ing petition for voluntary surrender of license where attorney ad-
mitted, among other things, to violating Rules 1.2 and 1.3 in fail-
ing to pursue client’s personal injury claim by failing to file peti-
tion in probate court); In the Matter of Grable, 310 Ga. 861, 861
(2021) 	(accepting 	petition 	for voluntary surrender of 	license
where attorney admitted, among other things, to violating Rules
5 In its response, the State Bar notes an apparent typographical error
in In the Matter of Kakol, 286 Ga. 469, 470 (2010), which incorrectly states that
Kakol received a public reprimand in 1984, which was one year before he was
admitted to the Bar.

6
1.2 and 1.3 in failing to complete the filing of a lawsuit on client’s
behalf). Accordingly, the name Stanley J. Kakol, Jr., shall be re-
moved from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the
State of Georgia. Kakol is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar
Rule 4-219(b).
Voluntary surrender of license accepted. All the Justices
concur.