Background
Andrew Thurston Murphy, a Georgia attorney admitted to the State Bar in 2013, was serving as trial counsel for a defendant charged with aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in Cobb County Superior Court. During that representation, Murphy sent a barrage of harassing emails — containing opprobrious language and terroristic threats — to the presiding superior court judge, the elected District Attorney of the Cobb County Judicial Circuit, the Chief Assistant District Attorney, the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case, and other court personnel.
On December 6, 2024, Murphy pleaded guilty in Cobb County Superior Court to 13 felony counts of Terroristic Threats under OCGA § 16-11-37(b) and four felony counts of Intimidation of a Court Officer under OCGA § 16-10-97. He received a total sentence of 15 years, with the first seven to be served in confinement. Murphy had already been suspended from practice for failing to respond adequately to a notice of investigation in a related but separate disciplinary matter.
Following the convictions, the State Bar petitioned the Supreme Court of Georgia to appoint a Special Master under Bar Rule 4-106 to conduct a show cause hearing. The Special Master held the hearing on November 21, 2025. Murphy did not appear. The State Bar introduced certified copies of the disposition, indictment, and waiver of rights form, and argued for disbarment. The Special Master thereafter issued a report recommending disbarment, to which neither Murphy nor the Bar filed exceptions.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Georgia adopted the Special Master’s findings and recommendation in full and ordered Murphy disbarred. The Court held that Murphy violated Rule 8.4(a)(2) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits a lawyer from being convicted of a felony. Because the maximum penalty for a Rule 8.4(a)(2) violation is disbarment, and because the record supported the Special Master’s findings, the Court concluded that disbarment was the only appropriate sanction.
The Special Master identified five aggravating factors under ABA Standard 9.22: dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. The sole mitigating factor was Murphy’s lack of a prior disciplinary record. The Special Master — and the Court — found that the aggravating factors substantially outweighed that single mitigating consideration. The Court also noted it did not rely on the “multiple offenses” aggravating factor in aggravation of discipline, since Murphy was charged with violating only one professional conduct rule in this proceeding.
The Court found the sanction consistent with precedent disbarring attorneys convicted of felonies involving interference with justice, citing In the Matter of Barnes, 320 Ga. 589 (2024); In the Matter of Hutto, 292 Ga. 556 (2013); and In the Matter of Skandalakis, 279 Ga. 865 (2005). Murphy’s name was ordered removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in Georgia. All Justices concurred.
Key Takeaways
- A guilty plea to felony charges — here, 17 counts of terroristic threats and intimidation of court officers — constitutes a per se violation of GRPC Rule 8.4(a)(2) and triggers the Bar’s disciplinary process under Bar Rule 4-106.
- Sending threatening communications to a judge, prosecutors, and court personnel in connection with an active representation carries the gravest professional consequences; the Court found disbarment appropriate under both ABA Standards 5.11(a) and 6.31(c).
- Five aggravating factors, including a pattern of misconduct and substantial legal experience, overwhelmed the single mitigating factor of no prior disciplinary history, leaving no room for a lesser sanction.
- A related pending disciplinary matter (S25Y1477) was placed on the Court’s inactive docket to be held only in the event Murphy seeks reinstatement.
Why It Matters
This case is a stark reminder that an attorney’s conduct during litigation — including all communications directed at judges, opposing counsel, and court staff — remains subject to professional responsibility rules. Sending threatening or harassing messages to members of the judiciary and the prosecution, even outside the formal record of a proceeding, can constitute serious criminal conduct and a categorical violation of the duty of professional fitness embodied in Rule 8.4(a)(2).
For the broader bar, the decision reinforces that felony convictions arising from courtroom-adjacent misconduct will presumptively result in disbarment in Georgia, with little mitigating room even for first-time offenders. Attorneys facing criminal charges — particularly those involving any intentional interference with the administration of justice — should expect the disciplinary process to proceed swiftly and in parallel with the criminal proceedings.