In the Matter of Alma C. Defillo

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court disciplined Alma C. Defillo, a Florida-licensed attorney who was not licensed in South Carolina, for offering legal services and advertising in South Carolina. The court found violations involving unauthorized practice, misleading communications and firm designations, improper advertising of specialization, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, and permanently barred her from seeking admission or advertising in the state without court authorization.

Holdings

1. South Carolina may exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over a lawyer not admitted in the state when the lawyer offers legal services in South Carolina or engages in advertising or solicitation targeted to potential South Carolina clients.
2. A respondent who fails to answer Formal Charges is deemed to admit the factual allegations; a respondent who fails to appear at the panel hearing is deemed to admit the factual allegations and concede the merits of recommendations considered at the hearing; and failure to except to the Hearing Panel report constitutes acceptance of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
3. Respondent violated Rules 5.5(b)(2), 7.1(a), 7.1(c), 7.4(b), 7.5(a), 7.5(b), 7.5(d), and 8.1(b), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, and Rules 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(3), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.
4. Respondent was permanently debarred from seeking any form of admission to practice law in South Carolina, including pro hac vice admission, without a prior order of the Court; she was also prohibited from advertising or soliciting business in South Carolina without such an order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether South Carolina had disciplinary jurisdiction over a lawyer licensed in another state but not admitted in South Carolina who offered legal services and targeted advertising to potential clients in South Carolina.
2. Whether respondent's conduct violated South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct governing unauthorized practice-related representations, misleading communications, specialization claims, firm names and letterhead, jurisdictional disclosures, and cooperation with disciplinary authorities.
3. What sanction was appropriate given respondent's misconduct, default, failure to cooperate, and failure to appear.

Disposition

other