Attorneys – No Prior Disciplinary History – Failure to Maintain Copies of All Required Financial Records

Listen to this article

Public reprimand is an adequate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct.

We accepted the Agreement and publicly reprimanded Respondent for his misconduct.

In this 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). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct and consents to a public reprimand.

Respondent was admitted to practice in 1998 and has no prior disciplinary history. In May 2023, an audit of the law firm in which Respondent practiced at the time revealed various billing discrepancies in numerous cases Respondent had handled and that Respondent had failed to maintain copies of all required financial records. The auditor determined Respondent owed a total of $25,237 in refunds to clients. By July 2023, Respondent had issued refunds to all the clients listed on the auditor’s report. ODC continued investigating this matter throughout 2024, but Respondent failed to respond completely to several of ODC’s requests for information and documentation.

Respondent admitted his conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent also admitted his misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline under Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. As conditions of discipline, Respondent also agreed to: (1) attend LEAPP Ethics School and Trust Account School; (2) retain and work with a law office management advisor for a period of one year, focusing on all aspects of his practice, but specifically including fee agreements and billing practices; and (3) complete six extra hours of continuing legal education on topics related to billing practices, in addition to his annual MCLE requirements, during the next reporting cycle.

In his affidavit in mitigation, Respondent emphasized the beneficial results he obtained for his clients, along with his remorse, lack of prior disciplinary history, and prompt, voluntary payment of restitution to all clients.

Public reprimand.

In the Matter of Mark Justin Josephs (Lawyers Weekly 010-007-26, 3 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. Mark Justin Josephs, of Myrtle Beach, pro se. South Carolina Supreme Court