Complaint filed against attorney behind Beltline, Falcons stadium lawsuits dismissed by Georgia Supreme Court
Bar failed to prove allegations, majority opinion says
John Woodham, the Buckhead attorney who's fought tooth and nail against the funding sources for Atlanta Falcons stadium and the Atlanta Beltline, will not be reprimanded for allegedly attempting to "shake down" developers during a lawsuit.
In a 5-to-2 decision, the Georgia Supreme Court today tossed out a State Bar of Georgia formal complaint accusing Woodham of ethics violations related to his 2008 legal challenge of a $130 million bond issuance by the Atlanta Development Authority for two Midtown developments. 13th Street Holdings, LLC, and Mezzo Development, LLC, both of which were managed by Tivoli Properties, were developing the projects.
The complaint was filed after Woodham called Tivoli and asked to speak with lawyers representing the developers. According to the State Bar, Woodham scheduled a conference call with lawyers representing 13th Street Holdings, LLC, and Mezzo Development, LLC, and asked that no one record the conversation.
Tivoli Properties CEO Scott Leventhal proceeded to record the conversation anyway, the court summary says. During that call, Woodham said that he would dismiss his lawsuit if they instead paid him $1.3 million — 1 percent of the total bonds issued for the public project. Leventhal then filed the complaint.
However, the Georgia Supreme Court's majority opinion notes that the State Bar "failed to prove the alleged violations on which it elected to proceed to hearing." Though acknowledging that Woodham acted in an “egregious, improper and appalling" manner, the unnamed opinion did not comment on whether his actions violated the other sections of the State Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct.
“Neither the State Bar, the special master, the Review Panel, nor the dissent points to any false or misleading conduct by Woodham in connection with his filing of the complaints in intervention or his attempts to secure a payment from the developers,” the majority opinion says.
In the dissent, Justices Robert Benham and Carol Hunstein argue the decision looks past Woodham's decision to "intervene in a civil action for dishonest reasons" by attempting to "'shake down' developers" involved in the bond transaction. That action, the dissenting justices write, violated the conduct rules.
"The evidence supports the conclusion that Woodham engaged in a scheme to intentionally and purposefully misuse his right to intervene in these proceedings in a dishonest and fraudulent manner for the purpose of gaining a financial windfall,” the dissent says. Benham and Huntstein argue that the evidence supports a finding that Woodham filed his complaints under his right to intervene "for the improper purpose of attempting to gain a small fortune for himself."
Woodham declined CL's request for comment for this story.