In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: April 6, 2020
S20Y0814. IN THE MATTER OF BARRY WAYNE ROREX. PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the State
Disciplinary Review Board’s report and recommendation
recommending that the license of Respondent Barry Wayne Rorex
(State Bar No. 176530) be suspended for six months based on a
similar suspension in Arizona. We agree.
The record shows that disciplinary proceedings were initiated
in Arizona against Rorex and that, after he failed to respond, he was
found to be in default.1 The facts, which were deemed to have been
admitted, were that in 2014 and 2015, Rorex violated various
disciplinary rules by abandoning the legal matters of three separate
Rorex was later allowed to present some evidence in mitigation of
discipline, which the Arizona Bar indicated it considered in reaching its
decision as to the proper level of discipline.
clients, failing to adequately communicate with those clients, failing
to return the clients’ files or unearned fees, and failing to respond to
the Arizona Bar. On June 21, 2017, the Supreme Court of Arizona
ordered that Rorex be suspended for six months and one day
(retroactive to February 24, 2017) with conditions on
In July 2019, the State Bar of Georgia issued a Notice of
Reciprocal Discipline pursuant to Rule 9.4 (b) (2) and mailed it to
Rorex at his official address of record, but he did not acknowledge
service or file a response. After an unsuccessful effort at personal
service, the State Bar served Rorex by publication in accordance
with Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). Rorex, who has been a member of
the Georgia Bar since 1997, has not responded or filed any objection
to this reciprocal proceeding.
After considering the record, the Review Board noted that
Rorex had not yet been reinstated in Arizona, and that, under Bar
2 The conditions imposed on Rorex’s reinstatement were the payment of
restitution to his three former clients and payment of costs and expenses
associated with the Arizona Bar’s prosecution of the disciplinary matter.
Rule 9.4 (b) (3), it was required to recommend substantially similar
discipline unless it found from the face of the record that certain
elements existed that would give it the discretion to make such other
recommendation as it deemed appropriate. The Review Board found
that Rorex had been provided with sufficient notice and opportunity
to be heard regarding the disciplinary proceedings both here and in
Arizona; that the underlying conduct would be a violation of
disciplinary rules in Georgia; that the conduct would be subject to
similar discipline in this State; and that none of the elements set
forth in Bar Rule 9.4 (b) (3) were present. Therefore, the Review
Board recommended that Rorex be suspended from the practice of
law in Georgia for six months from the date of the Supreme Court’s
order, with his reinstatement conditioned on his reinstatement to
practice law in Arizona after the payment of restitution and costs as
described in the Arizona disciplinary order dated June 21, 2017.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with the State
Disciplinary Review Board as to the appropriate sanction in this
reciprocal discipline matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that
Barry Wayne Rorex be suspended from the practice of law in this
State for a period of six months from the date of this opinion with
his reinstatement conditioned on proof of reinstatement in Arizona
after the payment of restitution and costs as described in the
Arizona disciplinary order dated June 21, 2017. If Rorex wishes to
seek reinstatement, he must offer proof to the State Bar’s Office of
General Counsel that he has been reinstated to the practice of law
in Arizona and that he has made restitution and paid costs as
ordered by the Arizona Supreme Court. If the State Bar agrees that
this condition has been met, the State Bar will submit a notice of
compliance to this Court, and this Court will issue an order granting
or denying reinstatement. We remind Rorex of his duties pursuant
to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
Six-month suspension with conditions on reinstatement.
Melton, C. J., Nahmias, P. J., and Blackwell, Boggs, Peterson,
Warren, Bethel, and Ellington, JJ., concur.