Attorneys – Misconduct – Number and Nature of Complaints Against Attorney

Listen to this article

Based on the number and nature of the complaints against Respondent, we found a definite suspension of six months is an appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct.

We accepted the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and suspended Respondent from the practice of law in this state for six months.

In an attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR).

Respondent was admitted to practice in 1989, and he has no prior disciplinary history. This Agreement involved nine complaints filed between September 27, 2021, and January 5, 2024. Respondent admitted his misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline under the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (providing a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct constitutes a ground for discipline); Rule 7(a)(3) (providing that a knowing failure to appear under Rule 19(c)(3), RLDE, constitutes a ground for discipline); Rule 7(a)(5) (providing that conduct tending to bring the legal profession into disrepute and conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law constitutes a ground for discipline). In the Agreement, Respondent agreed to pay costs, and consents to the imposition of a confidential admonition, a public reprimand, or a definite suspension of up to six months. Respondent requested that any definite suspension be imposed retroactively to the date of his interim suspension on November 15, 2023, and ODC does not object to that. Respondent also agreed to attend LEAPP Ethics School and to pay costs and restitution to seven clients. Respondent also agreed to engage a law office management advisor for two years, with quarterly reports submitted to the Commission on Lawyer Conduct.

Based on the number and nature of the complaints against Respondent, we found a definite suspension of six months is an appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct. Accordingly, we accepted the Agreement and suspended Respondent from the practice of law for a period of six months, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension on November 15, 2023.

Definite suspension.

In the Matter of George Harold Hanlin (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 010-065-24, 11 pp.) (Per Curiam) Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch, Jr. and Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Phylicia Yvette Christine Coleman, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; George Harold Hanlin, of Columbia, pro se. South Carolina Supreme Court