Attorneys – Agreement for Discipline by Consent – Rules of Professional Conduct

Listen to this article

Attorney’s conduct 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 nine months.

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

In 2018, Respondent began experiencing manic episodes and was first hospitalized in 2019. At that time, Respondent referred all of his clients to other attorneys apart from one, with which he assisted alongside another attorney. In the following years, Respondent developed bipolar disorder, began self- medicating with alcohol and marijuana, and was hospitalized five times. In 2020, the probate court found Respondent had a mental illness, discharged him from the psychiatric hospital, and ordered him to undergo outpatient treatment. The probate court’s order further required Respondent to take his psychiatric medications, ordered him to abstain from alcohol and drugs, and prohibited him from possessing firearms. The following month, Respondent was arrested after an altercation at a convenience store. According to Respondent, he was experiencing a manic episode during the incident. Nearly two years later, Respondent self-reported these charges to ODC, along with a 2019 arrest for DUI, first offense, and a 2021 traffic charge. This Court subsequently placed Respondent on interim suspension.

As to the 2020 arrest, Respondent pleaded guilty to pointing and presenting firearms at a person and breach of peace, non-aggravated in nature. The charges were referred to the Mental Health Court (MHC). Respondent began participating in the MHC program in 2023 and has now successfully completed the program, and the charges have been dismissed. Respondent entered into a monitoring contract with Lawyers Helping Lawyers.

Respondent admits his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 3.4(c) (providing a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); Rule 8.3(a) (providing a lawyer who is arrested for or has been charged by way of indictment of a serious crime shall inform ODC of the indictment in writing within fifteen days of the arrest); and Rules 8.4(a)–(c), (e) (providing it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct; commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness; commit a criminal act involving moral turpitude; and engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent further admits his conduct constitutes grounds for discipline under the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (prohibiting violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 7(a)(5) (prohibiting conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law); and Rule 7(a)(7) (prohibiting willful violations of valid court orders). Respondent agreed to the imposition of a confidential admonition, public reprimand, or definite suspension for a period not to exceed 12 months.

Definite suspension.

In the Matter of William John Sims (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 010-030-25, 3 pp.) (Per Curiam) Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch, Jr. and Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Connor J. Parker, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; Barbara Marie Seymour, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent. South Carolina Supreme Court