Attorneys – Agreement for Discipline by Consent – No Prior Disciplinary History

Listen to this article

Respondent’s conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

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

In this attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admitted misconduct and consented to the imposition of a public reprimand or a definite suspension not to exceed one year.

Respondent was admitted to practice in 2011 and has no prior disciplinary history. This Agreement resolves four disciplinary complaints that were filed with ODC between 2021 and 2024. The first complaint addressed in the Agreement involved both criminal misconduct and client-related misconduct.

Respondent admitted that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (requiring competence); Rule 1.3 (requiring diligence); Rule 3.2 (requiring a lawyer to take reasonable steps to expedite litigation); Rule 5.5(a) (prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law); Rule 8.4(b) (prohibiting a criminal act that reflects adversely on one’s fitness as a lawyer); Rule 8.4(d)(prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(e) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Respondent also 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 a willful violation of a valid order of this Court constitutes a ground for discipline); and Rule 7(a)(5) (prohibiting conduct that brings the legal profession into disrepute or demonstrates an unfitness to practice law). In the Agreement, Respondent admitted misconduct and agreed to the imposition of a public reprimand or a definite suspension not to exceed one year. Respondent also agreed to pay costs and to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School within one year. Lastly, Respondent agreed to meet with Lawyers Helping Lawyers within two months of the imposition of any sanction to undergo an alcohol and drug abuse assessment to determine whether any additional monitoring, services, or treatments are needed.

Definite suspension.

In the Matter of David Mark Foster (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 010-027-25, 8 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; Steve Wayne Sumner, of Steve W. Sumner, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent. South Carolina Supreme Court