The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

More documents

Recommendations

Info

is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects). In addition, respondent admits that his actions constitute grounds for discipline under Rule 7(a)(5), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (it shall be a ground for discipline for a lawyer to engage in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute). CONCLUSION We accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and suspend respondent from the practice of law for nine (9) months, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. Further, respondent shall obtain mental health counseling for a period of one (1) year from the date of this opinion and shall provide quarterly reports from his mental health counselor to the Commission certifying his cooperation with counseling. Respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this opinion. Within fifteen days of the filing of this opinion, respondent shall file an affidavit demonstrating he has complied with the requirements of Rule 30 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR. DEFINITE SUSPENSION. TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur. 28
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court _________ In the Matter of Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar, Respondent. __________ Opinion No. 26964 Heard September 22, 2010 – Filed April 25, 2011 __________ LETTER OF CAUTION _________ Disciplinary Counsel Lesley M. Coggiola and Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Barbara M. Seymour, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. David Dusty Rhoades, of Charleston, and Cynthia Barrier Patterson, of Columbia, for Respondent. _________ PER CURIAM: In this attorney discipline matter, the Hearing Panel (the Panel) determined Respondent was subject to discipline for violating Rule 7(a)(5), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and Rule 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, both of which provide that a lawyer may be disciplined for engaging in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or bring the legal profession into disrepute, and Rule 7(a)(6), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, which provides it is a ground for discipline for an attorney to violate the attorney's oath of office. A majority of the Panel concluded Respondent's action warranted an admonition and would require Respondent to pay the costs of this proceeding, while one member of the Panel recommended Respondent receive a Letter of Caution with a finding of minor misconduct. We find that 29
Page 1 and 2: The Supreme Court of South Carolina
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH
Page 5 and 6: The South Carolina Court of Appeals
Page 7 and 8: PETITIONS FOR REHEARING 4705-Hudson
Page 9 and 10: PETITIONS-SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME CO
Page 11 and 12: 4711-Jennings v. Jennings Pending 4
Page 13 and 14: 2010-UP-303-State v. N. Patrick 201
Page 15 and 16: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 17 and 18: determination by the Department as
Page 19 and 20: 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-15 § 1
Page 21 and 22: space to physician's practices and
Page 23 and 24: In sum, DHEC's policy shift concern
Page 25 and 26: using Beaver's appraisal was "contr
Page 27: suspension. 1 We accept the agreeme
Page 31 and 32: educated and financially successful
Page 33 and 34: civility, not only in court, but al
Page 35 and 36: he runs afoul of the penalties of l
Page 39 and 40: (B) shall execute and file with the
Page 45 and 46: Columbia, South Carolina April 21,
Page 47 and 48: E. Ros Huff, Jr., of Irmo, for Appe
Page 49 and 50: aised the issue on behalf of Matthe
Page 51 and 52: II. Beneficiaries/Next of Kin Depen
Page 53 and 54: insolvent insurer and (a) the claim
Page 55 and 56: Judge Goode found, the imposition o
Page 57 and 58: John T. Crawford, Jr., and Keven Ke
Page 59 and 60: STANDARD OF REVIEW In an action at
Page 61 and 62: any other person having a current o
Page 63 and 64: Accordingly, Appellants maintain th
Page 65 and 66: Specifically, Appellants argue the
Page 67 and 68: only be granted when absolutely nec
Page 69 and 70: abandoned issue when he failed to p
Page 71 and 72: the jury. Furthermore, the amount a
Page 73 and 74: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 75 and 76: Poovey approached the scene, he obs
Page 77 and 78: easonable suspicion to stop Frazier
Page 79 and 80:
urglary and the show-up, Sanders's
Page 81 and 82:
where an incident is so grievous th
Page 83 and 84:
Andrew F. Lindemann and J. Edward B
Page 85 and 86:
In any action . . . to recover dama
Page 87 and 88:
epose because the basis for a contr
Page 89 and 90:
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 91 and 92:
force trauma to the chest in connec
Page 93 and 94:
ISSUES ON APPEAL (1) Did the circu
Page 95 and 96:
to be a narcotic drug, one case fro
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Medicaid Services. 3 The South Caro
Page 101 and 102:
Peter appealed to the ALC. The ALC
Page 103 and 104:
necessitate a waiver-qualifying ind
Page 105 and 106:
of Columbia; Solicitor Edgar Lewis
Page 107 and 108:
transfer request." State v. Pittman
Page 109 and 110:
In this case, we find the family co
Page 111 and 112:
CONCLUSION We find the family court
Page 113 and 114:
FEW, C.J.: In Lawrence Burgess's ap
Page 115 and 116:
[T]he parties . . . consent and agr
Page 117 and 118:
municipality or a town from authori
Page 119 and 120:
court need not address remaining is
Page 121 and 122:
Burgess's counsel objected to the c
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
of 33%." Dr. Lehman also found Laws
Page 127 and 128:
the decision is affected by an erro
Page 129 and 130:
Reg. 67-707(C). known to the moving
show all

The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?