In the Matter of Hillman James Toombs

── In the Matter of Hillman James Toombs ── Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Court of Georgia No. S26Y0212 In the Matter of Hillman James Toombs Decided: May 19, 2026 PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board (“Review Board”), which reviewed the report and recommenda- tion of Special Master Adam M. Hames at the request of Hillman James Toombs (State Bar No. 714655), pursuant to Bar Rules 4- 214, 4-215, and 4-216. The Special Master concluded that Toombs, who has been a member of the Bar since 1988, violated Rules 1.4(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b); 8.1(a); and 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102(d), for which the Special Master recommended disbarment. The maxi- mum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 is public reprimand, while the maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 8.1(a) and 8.4(a)(4) is disbarment. The Review Board adopted the Special Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law but recommended that Toombs receive a two-year suspension. The State Bar and Toombs have both filed exceptions to the Review Board’s report. After our careful review of the record, we agree with the Review Board and conclude that a two-year suspension is appropriate, as more fully discussed below. 1. Procedural History In December 2023, the State Bar filed a formal complaint against Toombs, alleging violations of multiple Bar Rules. A Spe- cial Master was then appointed and after acknowledging service, Toombs filed his answer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the State Bar and Toombs filed post-hearing briefs, and the Special Master then issued his report and recommendation. 2. Special Master’s Report and Recommendation (a) Factual Findings Based on the State Bar’s formal complaint, Toombs’s an- swer, the evidentiary hearing, and the post-hearing briefs, the Special Master recounted the following. In December 2021, Toombs agreed to represent a client in a divorce case, taking over the matter for another attorney, and the client paid a fee of $6,500 in installments for the representation. As for scope of work, the agreement provided that the legal work included “all necessary court appearances, research, investigation, correspondence, prep- aration and drafting of pleadings and other legal documents, trial preparation and related work to properly represent [the client].” The client met with Toombs twice before trial, and Toombs told the client that the judge likely would have each party pay their own attorney fees. The client wanted the divorce to go to trial, and Toombs was able to accomplish that goal. Following trial in Feb- ruary 2022, the client was happy with the outcome of the final judgment and decree of divorce, as he was primarily concerned with obtaining custody of his daughter, which he received. The final judgment entered in March 2022 also provided that the parties could submit a request for attorney fees. The deadline for submission was March 15, 2022, but Toombs believed that the deadline for submitting this request was March 16, 2022. When the client inquired about the letter brie