ATLANTA — The Supreme Court of Georgia has rejected a former attorney’s request to accept a voluntary three-year suspension from practicing law after he admitted to forging a judge’s and prosecutor’s signatures on a court order.
The April 16, 2024, ruling in In Re: Paul Jason York denied the petition for voluntary discipline, citing unresolved felony charges that remain pending under a pretrial diversion agreement. York, a Cornelia-based attorney admitted to the State Bar in 2014, admitted to forging signatures in 2020 to help a client remove an ankle monitor against a court order.
The forged document allowed the client, who was facing misdemeanor family violence charges, to remove her court-ordered electronic monitoring device. York said the client’s financial hardship and pressure from her family and church members influenced his actions, according to the State Supreme Court. He was later charged with felony forgery.
In 2022, York entered into a three-year pretrial diversion agreement with the district attorney’s office. Under that agreement, which remains in effect until at least August 2025, York must abstain from drugs and alcohol, attend counseling and support group meetings, and is prohibited from practicing law until reinstated by the State Bar of Georgia.
York voluntarily ceased practicing law in May 2020 and has not filed any court documents since then. He sought a retroactive three-year suspension dating back to that date, arguing that he had met the conditions of the pretrial diversion and was in recovery from substance abuse and mental health challenges that contributed to his misconduct.
A special master appointed by the court agreed that York had shown remorse, taken significant steps toward rehabilitation, and was supported by professionals who believed he was fit to resume practicing law. The special master recommended accepting York’s petition with several conditions, including medical evaluations and proof of compliance with his diversion terms.
But the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the recommendation, stating that allowing York to resume practicing law while criminal charges remain unresolved could erode public trust in the legal profession.
“If he were permitted to resume practicing law before the PDA expires, the public is likely to lose respect for the legal system,” the Court wrote, citing precedent that lawyers should not practice while serving probation or under pending criminal charges, even in a diversionary program.
The Court noted that while York’s misconduct was serious enough to warrant disbarment, his petition did not meet the standard for an acceptable lesser punishment at this time. His request for a three-year suspension—backdated to May 2020—would make him eligible for immediate reinstatement, which the Court found inappropriate given the ongoing criminal matter.
“All the justices concurred” in the decision.
As of this ruling, York remains barred from practicing law, and the outcome of his criminal case will likely influence any future disciplinary proceedings.
