Homeless Lawyer Disbarred

An attorney who had engaged in misconduct in 14 separate matters has been disbarred by the South Carolina Supreme Court. 

A sampling

Client hired Respondent to represent her in a divorce. On at least two occasions, Respondent showed up late at night, unannounced at her home. One of these times was the evening before the divorce hearing. He was not prepared to try the case the next day and pleaded with her to settle. Respondent refused to negotiate with the guardian ad litem and was unprepared when the hearing went forward. After the client requested her file several times from Respondent, he informed her the order had not yet been signed and he was still working on the case.

His story is a sad one

Respondent appeared pro se at the hearing before the Panel on October 17, 2014, and was allowed to present evidence in mitigation. Respondent testified he has been homeless since 2009, when he sold the house he had shared with his former wife. Since then he has been living with other people, in his office, or in his car. He stated he had no money to pay restitution and was on food stamps…Respondent testified his difficulty has always been financial and he has never engaged in drug use. He expressed his difficulty learning the practice of law—he could not find a job and had to go into practice on his own without really knowing what he was doing.

The Panel gave little weight to the attorney’s difficulties.

The court

Considering the numerous instances of misconduct combined with Respondent’s deception of both his clients and ODC, we agree with  the Panel’s recommendation of disbarment. It is significant that Respondent failed to file an answer to the formal charges and has repeatedly failed to cooperate with ODC and the [Attorney to Protect Clients’ Interests] in the investigation of these matters…While we acknowledge Respondent represented himself at oral argument before this Court and expressed his desire to one day again practice law, he himself admitted it would not be for at least several years and acknowledged he would likely be disbarred; he simply requested that he one day be able to reapply for admission. We therefore find disbarment the appropriate sanction.

(Mike Frisch)