In the Supreme Court of Georgia
May 7, 2012
S11Y1961, S11Y1962, S11Y1963, S11Y1964, S11Y1965, S11Y1966,
S11Y1967, S11Y1968. IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT E. BACH.
These disciplinary matters are before the Court on eight Notices of
Discipline seeking the disbarment of Respondent Robert E. Bach. The State Bar
served the Notices of Discipline on Bach personally, but Bach failed to file any
Notices of Rejection. Therefore, he is in default, has waived his right to an
evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline and further proceedings as
may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).
The facts, as deemed admitted, show that Bach represented clients in
numerous bankruptcy cases and, with respect to some or all of them, did not file
the petition, closed his office without notifying his clients, did not refund an
unearned fee, abandoned the matter and failed to communicate with his clients,
falsely told a client the case was proceeding on schedule, was suspended from
practice in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia and did
not competently represent his clients in that court or properly supervise his nonlawyer support staff, did not comply with Bankruptcy Court orders to pay a
filing fee and to disgorge a fee, and failed to appear in court. By this conduct
Bach violated Rules 1.1, 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I) 1.16, 5.3, 8.4 and 9.3 of the
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d), some of which
may be punished by disbarment.
We have reviewed the records in these cases and agree that disbarment is
the appropriate punishment. In aggravation of discipline, we note that Bach
acted wilfully and dishonestly in collecting a fee and then abandoning his
clients, acted with a selfish motive and has a history of prior discipline (a
Review Panel reprimand in 1989). Accordingly, we hereby order that the name
of Robert E. Bach be removed from the rolls of attorneys authorized to practice
law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.