Summary
The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed an attorney disciplinary matter involving commingling and misuse of client funds, unauthorized practice of law, conflicts of interest, and other professional misconduct. The court disbarred the respondent, ordered restitution to injured parties, and imposed related compliance requirements.
Holdings
- Respondent violated numerous provisions of Rule 407, SCACR, including rules governing competence, diligence, communication, fees, conflicts of interest, prohibited business transactions, safekeeping of property, advising clients, unauthorized practice of law, misconduct, and failure to respond to a disciplinary authority.
- Disbarment was the appropriate sanction for respondent's egregious and repeated financial misconduct, practice of law while suspended, and involvement in improper financial transactions with clients.
- Respondent must pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings and make restitution to all injured parties, including clients and the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence established that respondent violated the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.
- What sanction was appropriate for respondent's repeated trust-account violations, financial misconduct, unauthorized practice of law while suspended, and related misconduct.
- Whether respondent should be ordered to make restitution to injured clients and the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and comply with related disciplinary requirements.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (10)
- In re Warlick, 334 S.C. 243, 513 S.E.2d 352 (1999)(cited)
- In re Warlick, 287 S.C. 380, 339 S.E.2d 110 (1986)(cited)
- United States v. Warlick, 742 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1984)(cited)
- In re Warlick, 296 S.C. 350, 372 S.E.2d 910 (1988)(cited)
- In re Larkin, 336 S.C. 366, 520 S.E.2d 804 (1999)(followed)
- In re McMillan, 327 S.C. 98, 490 S.E.2d 1 (1997)(followed)
- In re Thompson, 343 S.C. 1, 539 S.E.2d 396 (2000)(applied by analogy)
- In re Miller, 328 S.C. 283, 494 S.E.2d 120 (1997)(applied by analogy)
- In re Hendricks, 319 S.C. 465, 462 S.E.2d 286 (1995)(applied by analogy)
- In re Bowers, 303 S.C. 282, 400 S.E.2d 134 (1991)(applied by analogy)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…