The State Bar of Georgia has formally requested that the State Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Georgia impose sanctions against Albany attorney Joseph P. Durham for allegedly violating a suspension order. This action follows claims that Durham continued to engage in legal practice despite being suspended, undermining the authority of the legal regulatory framework.
According to Russell D. Willard, General Counsel of the State Bar, Durham has been aware of his suspension yet has reportedly engaged in prohibited conduct. In a petition submitted to the Disciplinary Board, Willard emphasized that compliance with suspension orders is mandatory to protect the public and maintain trust in the legal profession.
Durham’s law license was temporarily suspended after an emergency petition was filed on September 9, 2025, based on allegations that he posed a significant threat to clients and the public. Specific complaints against him include accusations of misrepresenting settlement funds, falsifying documents and signatures, and misappropriating client funds for personal use. Notably, he is implicated in misappropriating more than $2 million from various clients since becoming a member of the State Bar in 2003.
Violation of Suspension Order
On September 29, 2025, the court suspended Durham, explicitly stating that he could not return to legal practice until further notice. Despite this, the State Bar’s investigation revealed that he collected settlement fees amounting to $257,841 shortly after the suspension took effect.
Willard pointed out that under State Bar Rule 4-219 (b) (1), suspended attorneys must immediately cease practicing law in Georgia and notify clients of their suspension within 30 days. Furthermore, within 45 days of a final judgment, they must certify compliance with the rule by removing any indication of their legal status.
The investigation indicates that Durham’s actions violate the court’s order from September 29, 2025. In the complaint, 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 order.” He argued that Durham’s disregard for the court’s directive justifies the exercise of contempt powers and the imposition of sanctions to prevent future infractions.
This situation highlights the importance of adherence to legal regulations and the potential consequences for attorneys who fail to comply with disciplinary measures. As the case proceeds, the disciplinary board will determine appropriate actions to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and ensure public protection.
