Attorneys – Discipline – Excessive Fees – False Statement under Oath – Conflict of Interest

South Carolina Lawyers Weekly > Opinion Digest > Attorneys > Attorneys – Discipline – Excessive Fees – False Statement under Oath – Conflict of Interest

Attorneys – Discipline – Excessive Fees – False Statement under Oath – Conflict of Interest

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: August 1, 2012
Time posted: 5:06 pm
Tags: Attorneys, conflict of interest, Discipline, Excessive Fees, False Statement under Oath

In re Samaha Respondent (1) charged a fee of $115,000 to marshal the assets for an estate valued at less than $500,000; (2) failed to turn over documents to the attorney appointed to handle the estate of his client's late husband and untruthfully stated he did not know his client's whereabouts...

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to SC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

Try South Carolina Lawyers Weekly for a month
for only $32 AND get a free whitepaper:

Exit strategy: a solo and
small-firm lawyer's guide to
the how and when of retirement

Click here to subscribe now.

< Previous Article
Next Article >

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Recent Opinion Digests

Insurance -No UM/UIM ‘Stacking’ for Policy Omission

Dooley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. Although an auto liability policy failed to specify any specific amount of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provided, that omission did not mean the policy terms prohibiting “stacking,” or combining coverage for multiple insured vehicles, were ambiguous under Virginia law and would allow stacking. The 4th Circuit affirms the district court’s denial of additional coverage to appellant

Civil Rights – No Fair Housing Claim from HOA’s ATV Denial

Scoggins v. Lee’s Crossing Homeowners Ass’n A homeowners association for Lee’s Crossing subdivision wins a housing discrimination suit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 filed by a family who was denied the right for their disabled adult son to use an all-terrain vehicle on the subdivision’s unpaved roads; the 4th Circuit affirms summary judgment for the HOA and on the HOA’s cross-appeal, affirms denial of their request for attorney’s fees

Prisons & Jails – Claim Mooted for Prison Visitation Denial

Williams v. Ozmint Restoration of a prison inmate’s visiting privileges has mooted his appeal of suspension of those privileges for a two-year period as a penalty for the inmate’s suspected receipt of contraband; the 4th Circuit further concludes that the prison warden who imposed the suspicion is shielded by qualified immunity because the inmate did not have a clearly established right to visitation.

Labor & Employment – No ADA Claim from Leave Denial

Wilson v. Dollar General Corp. An employee of a chain-store distribution center who filed his disability discrimination claim with the EEOC before he filed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition has standing to pursue his discrimination claim, the 4th Circuit says, but the claim has no merit as the employee did not show he could perform the essential functions of his job had he been granted a brief additional leave for treatment of his vision impairment.

Environmental – CWA Permit Upheld for Mine Company

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The 4th Circuit affirms issuance of a water quality permit under the Clean Water Act to Highland Mining Company, on the basis that a proposed surface coal mine adjacent to a stream in Logan County would not damage water quality or violate water quality standards.