Attorneys – Mitigating Factors – No Prior Disciplinary History

We suspended attorney Respondent for six months for misconduct involving false COVID-19 continuance claims, public disclosure of client information, and submission of an improperly notarized affidavit, while recognizing her remorse, lack of prior discipline, and agreement to remedial measures.

Definite suspension for six months.

In a disciplinary matter before the South Carolina Supreme Court, attorney Respondent agreed to a consent-based disciplinary resolution with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) following allegations of professional misconduct in three separate matters between 2022 and 2023. Respondent, admitted to practice in 2017 with no prior disciplinary history, acknowledged wrongdoing in all three instances and consented to a public reprimand or a definite suspension of up to six months, along with other remedial measures, which we ultimately accepted, imposing a six-month definite suspension from the practice of law.

The first matter involved Respondent’s repeated use of a single photograph of a positive COVID-19 test to request continuances in family court proceedings over a period of more than a year, falsely representing the test results as contemporaneous for each case. The ODC’s investigation revealed that the photograph was the same in all three instances and had been taken long before the hearings. Respondent admitted this conduct violated Rules 4.1(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e) of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (SCACR), which require truthfulness, prohibit dishonesty or misrepresentation, and forbid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In the second matter, Respondent publicly responded on Facebook to a negative review from a former client, revealing confidential information about the client’s family law case, including a photograph of the client with a third party. She admitted that her actions violated Rule 1.9(c)(2), prohibiting the disclosure of information from a former client, as well as other ethical rules requiring confidentiality.

The third matter involved Respondent submitting an improperly signed and notarized affidavit in a family court case. Despite being alerted by the client’s ex-spouse that the signature was not genuine, Respondent failed to verify the affidavit herself or correct the record with the court, instead instructing the client’s new attorney to address the issue. This conduct violated multiple SCACR rules. Respondent admitted that submission of the affidavit constituted a misrepresentation to the court and opposing party.

In mitigation, Respondent acknowledged full responsibility for her actions, expressed genuine remorse, and emphasized her lack of intent to personally benefit or act dishonestly. She cited a medical condition increasing her susceptibility to COVID-19 as a factor in her request for continuances, but affirmed her primary aim was to prevent viral spread. Respondent also committed to improving her practice, including ensuring the authenticity of future affidavits, refraining from public commentary about clients, and implementing comprehensive training for herself and her staff on notarization procedures.

We considered these mitigating factors, including her lack of prior discipline, voluntary remedial steps, and consent to educational conditions, and concluded that a six-month definite suspension was an appropriate sanction to address the seriousness of the misconduct.

Definite Suspension.

In the Matter of Tasha Jean Kotz (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-008-26, 5 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. Barbara Marie Seymour, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent. South Carolina Supreme Court