Vic Brown Hill - Marietta, GA

Mr. Hill is first and foremost a trial attorney that limits his practice to divorce and other domestic relations cases. Mr. Hill holds a peer review rating of AV-Preeminent from Martindale-Hubbell and an AVVO rating of 10/10 – Superb. While Mr. Hill plans a strategy for each case individually, his basic approach is to prepare for war and use the power that provides to settle the case wherever possible. If settlement becomes impossible, Mr. Hill has ample experience in both bench trials and jury trials. He also has experience in appealing divorce cases to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Hill brings a strong background in business, accounting and cost analysis (both educational and practical experience) to the practice of domestic relations law. His business skills combine effectively to allow him to achieve excellent results in cases involving high asset and complex marital estates especially those that include on-going businesses.

Mr. Hill has published papers in technical trial techniques and areas of applicability to the family law practitioner. He is a Guardian Ad Litem for the Superior Court of Cobb County and he is a Registered Neutral with the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution.

Mr. Hill is a member of the State Bar of Georgia; the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia; the Cobb County Bar Association; the Family Law Section of the Cobb County Bar Association; and Phi Delta Phi. Mr. Hill is also a member of First United Methodist Church of Marietta, the Marietta Kiwanis, and the Kennesaw Business Association.

CLIENT TESTIMONIAL

I needed authenticity; I needed an aggressive, professional service provider that would guide me, and my family, through a very difficult legal process. I called on VIC BROWN HILL at Hill Macdonald, LLC. My family received prompt and incomparable care; there are attorneys . . . and then there is Hill Macdonald, LLC they fight, you win!

SM, Marietta, Georgia

more client testimonials

Georgia Court Grapples with Generative A.I.

Shahid v. Esaam

In June 2025, the Georgia Court of Appeals published its opinion in the Shahid v. Esaam case – one of the appellate cases where I represented the appellant. This case turned out to be an important case in Georgia jurisprudence as well as garnering national attention. It addressed the dangers of generative artificial intelligence (A.I.) in legal practice.

My client was the wife in a divorce action who did not get proper service of the petition for divorce against her. Her husband claimed ignorance of her whereabouts and convinced the trial court to allow him to serve her by publication. For those unfamiliar with this process, service by publication involves running a legal ad in the newspaper for four consecutive weeks advising a party that there is a case pending against them. After that four weeks, everyone proceeds as if the party had actually be served and had actual notice of the case pending between them.

Because the case proceeded to trial without my client’s knowledge, the result she received was very poor. She was not there to represent herself.

When she Shahid learned that she was divorced, she hired an attorney and brought a motion to set aside the decree of divorce because her constitutional right to notice had been denied. The trial court denied her motion and, in support of that denial, cited two cases of purported Georgia law. The problem was that neither of those cases existed. The trial court relied upon nonexistent law in making its judgment.

I represented Ms. Shahid in appealing the trial court’s decision to deny her motion to set aside the decree. I filed our brief in support of her appeal, and the same attorney who represented her husband in the trial court filed an opposing brief in the Georgia Court of Appeals. That brief was also filled with citations to fictitious law.

Ms. Shahid prevailed in her appeal and the Georgia Court of Appeals sent the matter back to the trial court. I did not ask the Court to impose frivolous appeal sanctions against the Appellee or his attorney, but the Court imposed sanctions on its own motion. The Court made it clear in its opinion that reliance upon generative A.I., while a convenience for attorneys, imposes upon an attorney the duty to ensure that the materials created by A.I. are legitimate and what they profess to be.