Albany attorney Tony C. Jones handed suspension by Georgia Supreme Court

ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court, in decisions issued Monday, has accepted a petition for voluntary discipline and ordered the 12-month suspension of Albany attorney Tony C. Jones, a former city solicitor, in connection to several disciplinary matters.

A recommendation had been given to the state’s highest court to accept the petition filed by Jones, who has been practicing law since 1984, and impose a suspension with conditions on reinstatement. A phone number listed for Jones had been disconnected by Monday morning.

The opinion issued Monday said Jones currently is suspended from practicing law, pursuant to two Supreme Court opinions, the first of which suspended him for 18 months with reinstatement conditioned on him repaying a client the full judgment entered against him in 2011. The second imposed an additional six-months suspension with conditions on reinstatement in order to resolve three additional client grievances from 2013.

In the petition, Jones admits that, in or around January 2011, he was retained to defend a client against criminal charges and was paid $4,000 for the representation. When he was suspended later in the year, he contacted the client and informed him he could no longer provide representation. Jones offered to refund any unearned fees, but was unable to do so before the client filed a grievance with the Georgia State Bar.

The opinion states Jones was properly served with a notice of investigation to which he failed to timely respond. He eventually resolved the refund matter with the client.

Jones further admits that around December 2009, a client retained him to defend against criminal charges — including failure to register as a sex offender and a probation revocation action based on new criminal charges. The client’s probation was revoked after a hearing, and the client decided to enter a plea on the new charges. The attorney believes he told the client that he would need new representation following the plea, but the client apparently did not understand.

The client wrote three letters to Jones afterward regarding an appeal, which the attorney claims to have never received. An investigative panel served Jones with a notice of investigation, to which he failed to timely respond, the opinion issued Monday said.

In June 2009, he was retained by a client’s family to defend against armed robbery charges. The first trial ended in mistrial, and the client was indicted on additional robbery charges. The new trial was set for the following Sept. 23, while Jones was reportedly not “in good standing” with the State Bar due to failure to pay dues.

Jones appeared on the client’s behalf and the client agreed to plead guilty to resolve all the charges against him. The agreement apparently called for a sentence of 20 years, with credit for time served. Jones claimed he recommended the client accept the plea, and believes he adequately explained that the client’s sentence prior to the plea by telling the client and his family that the law required at least 10 years, but that afterward he would be eligible for parole.

The opinion says the family maintains Jones told them the sentence contained a guarantee of probation after 10 years. The client was sentenced to 20 years to serve, with no credit for time already served.

When the family realized there was no guarantee of probation and there had been no credit received, they contacted Jones and asked he take action to correct the sentence. In June 2010, he wrote to the family indicating he would look into the sentence or withdraw of the plea — failing to follow through with either action, and the time for withdrawing the plea had already expired.

Jones failed to respond to a properly-served notice of investigation, the Court’s opinion said.

In the opinion issued Monday, the Court took into account issues Jones was facing outside his role as an attorney.

“We note in aggravation that Jones’ prior disciplinary history evidences a pattern of misconduct; that this petition covers multiple offenses; and that Jones has substantial experience in the practice of law,” the opinion said. “In mitigation, we note, as did the special master, that all of the grievances in Jones’ several matters (including these) arose from conduct that occurred between 2009 and 2011, during which time Jones was struggling with personal problems and mental health issues (for which he is now receiving treatment) and that Jones’ failings in these cases are symptomatic of the same problems that led to his earlier suspensions. We further note that Jones lacked a dishonest or selfish motive; that he was suffering through personal and emotional problems; that he accepts responsibility for his errors, for which he is remorseful; and that once he became engaged in these disciplinary proceedings, he has exhibited a cooperative attitude.”

In light of those circumstances, the Court decided on a 12-month suspension to run concurrently with his prior suspensions, and require a refund of fees in at least one of the cases in question. After the 12-month period, he can seek reinstatement, the Court said.