Attorneys « South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Home > Opinion Digest > Archive by category 'Attorneys'

Attorneys – Discipline by Consent – Disbarment

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: May 9,2012

In re Roberts Where (1) it appears that someone in respondent’s law office created and post-dated a demand letter in order to support a foreclosure, (2) respondent used $40,000 of the Chanticleer Tax District Commission’s funds for his personal use (which he later repaid) ...

Attorneys – Contempt – Service of Sentence – Purge – Attorney’s Fees

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: May 2,2012

Cannon v. Georgia Attorney General’s Office Service of his contempt jail sentence did not purge the appellant-attorney of contempt. He was still required to abide by the trial court’s order that he pay opposing counsel’s fees that arose from appellant’s contemptuous conduct.

Attorneys – Discipline – Alcohol & Drug Addiction – Criminal Convictions – Other Rules Violations – Definite Suspension

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: April 26,2012

In re Cooper Even though respondent has been cooperative, self-reported two of the four allegations of misconduct, and has actively sought treatment for his alcohol and prescription drug addition, since his misconduct involved multiple criminal offenses (assault, trespass and possession of unlawful prescription drugs), the disclosure of confidential client information, and the failure to diligently pursue an appeal, we find a six-month definite suspension from the practice of law is warranted.

Attorneys – Discipline – Diligence – Acceptance of Responsibility – Prejudice to the Administration of Justice – Past Violations

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: April 26,2012

In re Atwater Given respondent’s lack of diligence (allowing a client’s relatively simple case to stretch out over 10 years) and his refusal to accept responsibility for his part in the delays, we find that respondent violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(e) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. We suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months and order him to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Attorneys – Consumer Protection – Solicitation – FOIA – S.C. DMV – Car Buyers – Potential Class Action — Driver Privacy – Litigation Exception

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: April 13,2012

Maracich v. Spears Lawyers who used FOIA requests to the South Carolina DMV to find plaintiff car buyers for a potential class action against car dealers for collection of unlawful fees did not violate a federal privacy statute that protects drivers’ personal information; the 4th Circuit upholds summary judgment for the lawyers who satisfied the “litigation” exception to the driver privacy statute.

Attorneys – Discipline – Definite Suspension – Trust Account Mishandling – Mitigation

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: March 8,2012

In re Jordan Although respondent mishandled his trust account and failed to reconcile it -- so he did not realize an employee was embezzling from the account -- respondent replaced the money as soon as he learned about the deficits, fully cooperated with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and worked diligently and successfully at rehabilitation from his substance abuse problems.

Attorneys – Discipline – Disbarment – Stealing Client Funds

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: February 29,2012

In re Taylor Where respondent (1) embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars of client funds in order to support a lavish lifestyle, (2) failed to safeguard other client funds, (3) incurred debt in his wife’s name without her knowledge, (4) pled guilty to breach of trust with fraudulent intent, and (5) failed to respond to inquiries by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, we agree with the recommendation of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct panel’s recommendation that respondent be disbarred.

Attorneys – Discipline – Public Reprimand – Unauthorized Practice of Law – Suspension – Health Issues – Inaccurate Affidavit

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: February 29,2012

In re Gray Following respondent’s suspension from the practice of law, he continued practicing law to clear up a matter for one client. He also filed an affidavit stating, “I had no cases at the time of my definite suspension….” When this inaccuracy was brought to his attention, respondent promptly corrected it.

Attorneys – Fees – S.C. Statute – Frivolous Lawsuits – Arbitration – Securities – Labor & Employment

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: February 23,2012

Wachovia Securities LLC v. Brand A securities firm that lost its FINRA arbitration proceeding against former employees who left to work for a competitor winds up paying over $1 million in attorney’s fees under a South Carolina statute that penalizes frivolous lawsuits; the 4th Circuit affirms the district court order refusing to vacate the arbitration award in favor of the former employees and upholding the award of $15,080 in treble damages and $1.1 million in attorney’s fees under the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Act.

Attorneys – Attorney-Client Privilege – Civil Practice – Discovery – Bank Records – Mortgage Scam

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: February 21,2012

RBC Bank (USA) v. Epps Where bank records of the defendant-attorney’s trust account do not involve confidential communications between the attorney and his clients, the records are not protected by attorney-client privilege.