The Georgia Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion on January 21, 2026, addressing a complex disciplinary matter involving attorney Mylee McKinney (State Bar No. 122143), who faces potential disbarment for professional misconduct.
The disciplinary proceedings center on McKinney's alleged abandonment of nine clients whom she represented primarily in child custody and divorce matters. The Georgia State Bar originally filed a Notice of Discipline in March 2025 seeking to disbar McKinney based on her misconduct in these family law cases.
The case has taken an unusual procedural turn that highlights the technical requirements governing attorney disciplinary proceedings in Georgia. McKinney attempted to reject the Notice of Discipline within the time frame required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the State Bar argued that her efforts were inadequate and insufficient, requesting that the court proceed with disbarment without additional process.
Under Georgia Bar Rule 4-208.1(b), attorneys who fail to properly reject a Notice of Discipline face severe consequences. The rule states that unless the Notice of Discipline is properly rejected, "the respondent shall be in default; the respondent shall have no right to any evidentiary hearing; and the respondent shall be subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by the Supreme Court of Georgia."
The procedural complexity stems from Bar Rule 4-208.3(b), which requires that rejection of a Notice of Discipline must include a sworn response if the respondent has not previously filed one to the Notice of Investigation. The State Bar contends that McKinney's rejection was invalid because it failed to include this required sworn response.
In May 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court referred the matter to Special Master Patrick E. Longan to determine whether McKinney should be deemed in default. The Special Master was tasked with evaluating whether McKinney's timely rejection of the Notice of Discipline was procedurally deficient due to the absence of a sworn response.
The nine client matters at the center of the disciplinary case are referenced in the court documents as State Disciplinary Board Docket Numbers 7996 through 8004. While the specific details of McKinney's alleged misconduct in these cases are not fully outlined in the available court documents, the allegations focus on her representation and ultimate abandonment of clients in sensitive family law matters involving child custody and divorce proceedings.
Client abandonment represents one of the most serious forms of professional misconduct in the legal profession. When attorneys abandon clients, particularly in family law cases involving children and marital dissolution, the consequences can be severe for the affected families. Such cases often involve time-sensitive court deadlines, custody arrangements, and financial settlements that require continuous legal representation.
The procedural dispute in McKinney's case underscores the importance of strict compliance with disciplinary rules in attorney regulation. Georgia's attorney disciplinary system, like those in other states, requires precise adherence to procedural requirements to ensure due process while maintaining the integrity of the profession.
The case also highlights the role of Special Masters in complex disciplinary proceedings. Special Masters are experienced attorneys or retired judges appointed by courts to handle specific aspects of cases, particularly when technical or procedural questions arise that require detailed examination.
The Supreme Court's decision to refer the matter to a Special Master rather than immediately ruling on the State Bar's request for summary disbarment suggests the court recognized the complexity of the procedural issues involved. This approach allows for a thorough examination of whether McKinney's response met the technical requirements under the professional conduct rules.
The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how Georgia handles similar disciplinary matters in the future. If the court determines that McKinney's rejection was inadequate, it could establish precedent for strict enforcement of the sworn response requirement. Conversely, if the court finds her rejection was sufficient, it might provide guidance on what constitutes adequate compliance with the disciplinary rules.
For attorneys practicing in Georgia, this case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of understanding and complying with all procedural requirements when responding to disciplinary charges. The consequences of procedural errors can be severe, potentially resulting in default judgments and the loss of one's license to practice law.
The case remains pending before the Georgia Supreme Court as it considers the Special Master's findings and determines the appropriate course of action regarding McKinney's professional status and the alleged misconduct in her representation of the nine family law clients.