Summary
The Supreme Court of South Carolina disciplined James Gerald Longtin for misconduct involving failures to prosecute cases, communicate with a client and disciplinary authorities, practice law while suspended in federal court, pay case-related expenses, and complete a retained legal task. The court imposed a nine-month suspension, adopted additional conditions concerning ethics education, treatment, restitution, monitoring, and required appearance before the Committee on Character and Fitness before reinstatement.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court has sole authority to discipline attorneys and determine appropriate sanctions, and may independently make findings of fact and accept, reject, or modify the Panel's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
- A disciplinary violation must be established by clear and convincing evidence, with the burden on disciplinary counsel.
- Longtin committed professional misconduct by failing to adequately prosecute cases and follow court orders, willfully failing to respond to a client and ODC, and continuing to practice law in federal court while suspended.
- An attorney's failure to timely pay case-related expenses owed to a third party law firm may constitute professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(a), RPC, and Rule 7(a)(5), RLDE.
- An attorney commits professional misconduct by failing to perform the task for which the attorney was retained, including failing to record a deed after being retained and paid to do so.
- Longtin's diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome did not preclude findings of misconduct or excuse his violations, but it mitigated the severity of the sanction.
- The misconduct warranted a definite nine-month suspension, appointment of counsel to protect clients' interests, payment of disciplinary costs, completion of ethics and trust-account schools, continued treatment, repayment of the $10 recording fee, and Committee on Character and Fitness review before reinstatement, with monitoring and mentoring requirements after reinstatement.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court could independently review and modify the Hearing Panel's factual findings, conclusions, and recommended sanctions in an attorney disciplinary proceeding.
- Whether Longtin's failure to prosecute cases and comply with court orders, failure to communicate with a client and ODC, and unauthorized practice while suspended constituted professional misconduct.
- Whether failure to timely pay case-related expenses owed to another law firm constituted professional misconduct.
- Whether failure to record a client's deed constituted professional misconduct despite a factual dispute concerning preparation of the deed.
- Whether Longtin's diagnosis mitigated but excused his misconduct.
- What sanction and reinstatement conditions were appropriate.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- In the Matter of Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982)(followed)
- In re Thompson, 343 S.C. 1, 10-11, 539 S.E.2d 396, 401 (2000)(followed)
- In re Greene, 371 S.C. 207, 216, 638 S.E.2d 677, 682 (2006)(followed)
- In Re Prendergast, 390 S.C. 395, 396 n. 2, 702 S.E.2d 364, 365 n. 2 (2010)(followed)
- In re Johnson, 385 S.C. 501, 685 S.E.2d 610 (2009)(followed)
- In re Okpalaeke, 374 S.C. 186, 648 S.E.2d 593 (2007)(followed)
- In re Fulton, 343 S.C. 506, 541 S.E.2d 531 (2001)(followed)
- In the Matter of James G. Longtin, 352 S.C. 21, 22, 572 S.E.2d 282, 282 (2002)(prior disciplinary history)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…