In re Rogol

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court accepted an attorney’s agreement for discipline by consent and publicly reprimanded him for misconduct in criminal defense, contingency-fee, and trust-account matters. The misconduct included inadequate client communication, failure to obtain a written fee agreement, failure to pursue a client’s personal-injury claim before the statute of limitations expired, and commingling personal and client funds.

Holdings

1. Respondent's admitted failures involving competence, client communication, diligence, fee communication, and maintenance of client funds violated Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(b), 1.15(a), and 8.4(a), Rule 407, SCACR.
2. The respondent's misconduct warranted a public reprimand, and the court accepted the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and publicly reprimanded respondent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether respondent's admitted conduct violated the cited Rules of Professional Conduct and constituted grounds for attorney discipline.
2. Whether the agreement for discipline by consent should be accepted and respondent publicly reprimanded.

Disposition

other