The State Bar of Georgia has initiated proceedings against suspended attorney Joseph P. Durham, alleging that he has continued to practice law despite being under a suspension order. The State Bar is requesting that the State Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Georgia exercise its contempt powers to impose sanctions on Durham for non-compliance with the court’s directives.
According to Russell D. Willard, General Counsel for the State Bar, Durham has engaged in conduct that violates the suspension order, which undermines the integrity of the disciplinary process. Willard emphasized that compliance with such orders is mandatory to ensure public protection and maintain confidence in the legal profession. In a petition, he stated, “Compliance with a suspension order is not discretionary; it is a mandatory condition imposed to protect the public and preserve confidence in the legal profession.”
Durham’s law license was temporarily suspended following a petition filed on September 9, 2025, which identified him as posing a “substantial threat of harm to his clients or the public.” Allegations against him include lying about settlement funds, falsifying documents, and misappropriating client money for personal use, with claims totaling more than $2 million. He has been a member of the State Bar since 2003 and is currently facing three separate ethics complaints.
Allegations and Continued Violations
The Supreme Court explicitly stated that Durham “may not return to the practice of law until further order of [the] court.” Despite this, investigations reveal that he began collecting settlement fees shortly after the suspension. The State Bar’s inquiry has identified that Durham collected a total of $257,841 after his suspension was enacted.
Willard pointed out that State Bar Rule 4-219 (b) (1) mandates that a suspended lawyer must cease practicing law immediately and inform all clients of their inability to represent them within 30 days. Additionally, the rule requires that within 45 days of a suspension, the attorney must certify to the court that they have complied with the requirements, which include removing any indication of their status as a legal professional.
Willard stated, “The foregoing behavior shows that respondent is actively engaging in the practice of law, and the court should hold respondent in contempt for violating its September 29, 2025 order.” He argues that Durham’s actions constitute contempt and warrant sanctions to enforce compliance and deter future violations.
The ongoing situation highlights significant concerns regarding adherence to legal ethics and the responsibilities of attorneys under suspension. The outcome of the State Disciplinary Board’s review and potential sanctions will be closely monitored as the legal community awaits a resolution to this troubling case.
