The duty of an attorney extends far beyond competence; it demands accountability and professional composure. The Supreme Court of Georgia delivered a stern ruling against attorney Charles M. Dalziel, Jr. in July 2025, imposing a six-month suspension of his law license. The sanction was imposed for his persistent failure to account for client funds, aggravated by leaving threatening voicemails for his former client.
The ruling is particularly significant because it makes Dalziel’s reinstatement conditional upon proving his psychological fitness to practice law, directly addressing the underlying behavioral issues demonstrated in the case.
The Core Misconduct: Failure to Account and Intimidation
The disciplinary matter stemmed from Dalziel’s representation of a client, “W.G.,” in a securities case. The misconduct escalated from poor financial practice to outright hostility:
- Refusal to Account (Rule 1.15(I)(c)): W.G. paid Dalziel a $3,650 retainer. Despite repeated requests, Dalziel failed and refused to provide a prompt accounting of how the funds were spent for four months. The Georgia Supreme Court noted that this is a stand-alone violation that severely undermines client trust.
- Improper Fee Claim and Threats: When Dalziel finally produced an invoice, he claimed W.G. owed an additional $2,701. When W.G. failed to pay the disputed balance, Dalziel left a series of threatening voicemails. These threats included discussing an arrest warrant for theft of services and using menacing language, telling the client that “heads would roll.”
- Breach of Confidentiality (Rule 1.6(a)): Dalziel further compounded his misconduct by improperly disclosing sensitive, confidential information about W.G. in his official response to the State Bar’s grievance.
The Ruling: Suspension with Fitness Condition
The Court was careful in its judgment, balancing the severe professional violations with mitigating factors:
- Mitigating Factors: The Court acknowledged Dalziel’s lack of a prior disciplinary history (admitted 1980) and the presence of personal/emotional problems, including issues with alcohol abuse and mental health during the time of the misconduct.
- Aggravating Factors: These were heavy, including a selfish or dishonest motive (to keep the retainer), multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the threats, and the use of coercion against the client.
The Final Sanction
The Supreme Court ruled the appropriate sanction was a six-month suspension, effective July 22, 2025. Crucially, the Court added a condition specifically targeting Dalziel’s behavior:
Condition for Reinstatement: Charles M. Dalziel, Jr. cannot be reinstated to the practice of law until a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist certifies that he is fit to practice law.
This condition demonstrates the Court’s determination to protect the public from an attorney who demonstrated both a lack of financial ethics and severe issues with professional decorum and communication.
Conclusion: Accountability is Mandatory
The case of Charles M. Dalziel, Jr. sends two key messages to the Georgia Bar:
- The Duty to Account is Absolute: Failing to promptly and honestly account for client funds (Rule 1.15) is a serious offense that can immediately trigger a substantial suspension, even without proven theft.
- Decorum is Essential: Threatening or intimidating clients, especially when fueled by personal distress, is unacceptable. When behavioral issues threaten client safety, the Court will mandate a psychological fitness assessment before allowing an attorney to resume practice.
The suspension protects the public while ensuring that when Dalziel returns, he has addressed the issues that led to this profound ethical breach.