Summary
The Supreme Court of South Carolina permanently debarred an attorney who was not licensed in South Carolina for unauthorized and improper pro hac vice practice, including filing documents without required local-counsel signatures and issuing defective subpoenas and discovery requests in a dismissed family-law matter. The court treated the formal charges as admitted because the respondent failed to answer or appear, and ordered payment of proceeding costs and reimbursement to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court had disciplinary authority over an attorney not admitted to practice law in South Carolina who provided legal services in the state.
- Whether the Hearing Panel's recommended sanction should be adopted.
- Whether permanent debarment, costs, reimbursement to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, and compliance with Rule 30 were appropriate sanctions for the admitted misconduct.
Holdings
- An attorney who is not admitted in South Carolina but provides or offers to provide legal services in South Carolina is subject to the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court of South Carolina and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct.
- Because Lundgren failed to answer the formal charges and failed to appear at the hearing, the allegations and factual matters were deemed admitted, and the Court's remaining task was to determine the appropriate sanction.
- Permanent debarment was appropriate, together with a prohibition on seeking any form of admission to practice law in South Carolina, a prohibition on advertising or soliciting legal services in the state, payment of investigative and proceeding costs, reimbursement of $758.95 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, and filing an affidavit demonstrating compliance with Rule 30.
Key quotations
“An attorney’s failure to answer charges or appear to defend or explain alleged misconduct indicates an obvious disinterest in the practice of law. Such an attorney is likely to face the most severe sanctions because a central purpose of the disciplinary process is to protect the public from unscrupulous and indifferent lawyers.” (at 304)
Factual background
Lundgren, a Utah-licensed attorney who was not admitted in South Carolina, sought to represent his wife in South Carolina defamation and divorce-related proceedings. He filed pleadings and other papers without the required signature of local counsel and later appeared in the family court matter without first filing the required pro hac vice application and motion. After the divorce modification proceeding concluded, he issued an improper subpoena and served improper discovery requests in the dismissed action, including false statements regarding the action's status and compliance with procedural rules.
Procedural history
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed formal charges on August 22, 2016. Lundgren failed to answer and was held in default on November 3, 2016; the Hearing Panel issued its report on December 9, 2016, recommending permanent debarment and related sanctions. Neither party filed exceptions, and the matter proceeded to the Supreme Court of South Carolina for determination of the appropriate sanction.