Sanction Reduced After Remand
An unusual disciplinary order of the South Carolina Supreme Court takes back a recent disbarment
By opinion dated July 7, 2021, this Court disbarred Respondent. In re Hopkins, Op. No. 28042 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Jul. 7, 2021) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 23 at 9). Thereafter, this Court granted Respondent’s petition for rehearing following the discovery that our July 7, 2021 decision was made without the benefit of existing mitigating evidence, which was submitted to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), but which ODC failed to provide to the Commission on Lawyer Conduct or to this Court. In re Hopkins, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Aug. 19, 2021. The matter was reheard on October 11, 2021, and after careful consideration of all mitigating evidence, we hereby substitute the attached opinion for the previous opinion, which is withdrawn.
As to the lapse
Indeed, ODC admits it “inexplicably” failed to include Respondent’s affidavit in mitigation with the other case file materials when the matter was submitted to the Commission for review and recommendation under Rule 21(c), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Due to ODC’s failure, neither the Commission nor this Court had the benefit of reviewing Respondent’s mitigating information in considering the Agreement and the appropriate sanction. In ODC’s return and at rehearing, Disciplinary Counsel has assured this Court that ODC and the Commission have both implemented new internal procedures to avoid omissions of this type in the future.
The mitigation
At the rehearing, Respondent testified credibly that he is remorseful and regrets he did not recognize and treat his symptoms sooner, rather than withdrawing and isolating himself from the support of family, friends, and colleagues. Respondent explained that at the time of the misconduct, “personally and professionally, I was spiraling. It is so unfortunate it took a catastrophe like this for me to get the help I needed.” Respondent testified that he plans to continue treatment “for the rest of [his] life” and believes he can make positive contributions to the legal profession if he is allowed to practice law again. Respondent also submitted five character affidavits from long-serving and well respected members of the Bar, who acknowledged Respondent’s misconduct and attested to Respondent’s remorse, good character, fitness to practice law, and long history of service to the community and the legal profession.
As a result, the sanction was reduced to a three-year definite suspension. (Mike Frisch)