Attorneys – Agreement for Discipline by Consent – Suspended License

Listen to this article

Respondent’s conduct in practicing law while suspended and in being dishonest with the magistrate violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

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 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 definite suspension not to exceed one year.

Respondent was admitted to practice law in 2016, and he has no prior disciplinary history. However, on March 3, 2023, Respondent was administratively suspended for failing to pay his annual license fees. On June 20, 2023, Respondent appeared as counsel before the James Island Magistrates Court to represent two individuals in a traffic court matter. The court’s case management system reflected that Respondent was not eligible to practice law. The magistrate invited Respondent into chambers and showed Respondent the written communication from South Carolina Court Administration reflecting Respondent’s inability to practice law. In response, Respondent indicated that the information was incorrect, and told the magistrate that he had been reinstated months ago. Respondent also told the magistrate he had an order of reinstatement at his office. The magistrate accepted Respondent’s word that Respondent had been reinstated and allowed Respondent to represent the two individuals on their traffic tickets. After the hearing, the magistrate instructed his clerk to contact Respondent by telephone and direct Respondent to fax his letter of reinstatement to the court by close of business that day, June 20, 2023. After several unsuccessful attempts to contact Respondent, the court issued an order requiring Respondent’s appearance on June 28, 2023. Respondent appeared as ordered, and at the hearing, Respondent admitted to the magistrate that his license was suspended at the time of his appearance on June 20, 2023, and that he lied to the court about having an order of reinstatement. The court also asked Respondent whether he had appeared before any other courts during his suspension. Respondent initially denied any appearances, but when questioned about his appearance before another magistrate in April 2023, Respondent admitted the appearance and stated that he had forgotten. As a result of Respondent’s dishonesty, the magistrate held Respondent in contempt of court.

Respondent admitted his conduct in practicing law while suspended and in being dishonest with the magistrate violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 3.3(a) (prohibiting knowingly made false statements of fact or law to a tribunal); Rule 5.5(a) (prohibiting the practice of law in violation of the regulation of the legal profession); Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct); 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 is a ground for discipline); Rule 7(a)(5) (providing conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law is a ground for discipline); and Rule 7(a)(7) (conduct in willful violation of a valid court order is a ground for discipline). In the Agreement, Respondent admitted misconduct, agreed to a definite suspension not to exceed one year, agreed to pay costs, and agreed to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School prior to seeking reinstatement.

This Court views acts of dishonesty with the utmost scrutiny and disfavor. In light of Respondent’s absence from the practice of law since March 3, 2023, we found a one-year definite suspension will suffice as an adequate sanction for Respondent’s serious misconduct.

Definite suspension.

In the Matter of Matthew Gregg Miller (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 010-026-25, 4 pp.) (Per Curiam) Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch, Jr. and Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Ericka McCants Williams, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; Matthew Gregg Miller, of Johns Island, pro se. South Carolina Supreme Court