In the Matter of Charles M. Dalziel, Jr

── In the Matter of Charles M. Dalziel, Jr ── 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. S26Y0257 IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES M. DALZIEL, JR. Decided: May 19, 2026 PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Special Master Adam M. Hames, who rec- ommends that Charles M. Dalziel, Jr. (State Bar No. 203730) be suspended for at least six months for his conduct in this matter and that he not be reinstated until a licensed psychologist or psy- chiatrist certifies that he is mentally competent to practice law. We previously imposed a six-month suspension on Dalziel with the same condition for reinstatement. See In the Matter of Dalziel, 322 Ga. 212 (2025) (“Dalziel I”). Because Dalziel has not yet com- plied with this condition for reinstatement, he remains sus- pended. In the current matter, the State Bar filed a formal com- plaint against Dalziel, who has been a member of the State Bar since 1980, charging him with violating Rules 1.6(a), 1 and 3.1(a) 2 1 Rule 1.6(a) states in pertinent part that “[a] lawyer shall maintain in confidence all information gained in the professional relationship with a cli- ent[.]” The maximum sanction for a violation of this Rule is disbarment. 2 Rule 3.1(a) provides that “[i]n the representation of a client,” a lawyer shall not “file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another[.]” The maximum sanction for a violation of this Rule is a public reprimand. and (b) 3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“GRPC” or “Rules”) by disclosing confidential client information and by filing and litigating a frivolous lawsuit designed to harass a law firm (“the Law Firm”) into paying his attorney fees. Dalziel failed to respond to the formal complaint and the Special Master granted the State Bar’s motion for default, such that the allegations al- leged in the formal complaint were deemed admitted. The Special Master then held a hearing, which Dalziel failed to attend, on ag- gravating and mitigating factors and issued his report and rec- ommendation. Neither party has filed exceptions in this Court. After our review of the record, we conclude that the appro- priate sanction is a six-month suspension with the condition that Dalziel not be reinstated until a licensed psychologist or psychia- trist certifies that he is mentally competent to practice law. Fur- ther, we conclude that this suspension should run consecutive to Dalziel’s current suspension, such that this six-month suspension will begin after Dalziel provides a certification that he is mentally competent to practice law, as required by Dalziel I. 1. Special Master’s Report and Recommendation (a) Findings of Fact Based on the facts in the formal complaint, which were deemed admitted by Dalziel’s default, and the evidence intro- duced at the hearing on aggravating and mitigating factors,