Disbarment In South Carolina

A significant number of client-related findings of misconduct led the South Carolina Supreme Court to order disbarment of an attorney.

Additionally

During ODC’s investigation, Respondent candidly disclosed his long history of substance abuse issues, specifically cocaine and alcohol addiction. Respondent disclosed that while practicing law, he used cocaine off and on between 2005 and 2017 and then more frequently, sometimes daily, between 2017 and June 2019. Respondent received substance abuse treatment at an in-patient facility from June 2019 to July 2019. Respondent relapsed with alcohol in both May 2020 and November 2021; he relapsed with both alcohol and cocaine in September 2021. Respondent then received treatment through an outpatient program from June 2022 to August 2022. Respondent represented that he has attended weekly Alcoholics Anonymous meetings since August 2022.

While investigating these matters, ODC discovered that Respondent had been charged with second-degree domestic violence, a misdemeanor, on May 5, 2020. This incident occurred while Respondent was extremely intoxicated. On March 9, 2023, Respondent pled guilty to third-degree domestic violence, a misdemeanor, specifically for striking his wife’s head against the floor in the presence of their minor child. Respondent was sentenced to ninety days in prison and a fine of 2,500, suspended on probation for two years, with credit for one day of time served.

Sanction

Based on Respondent’s extensive pattern of misconduct, we find disbarment is the appropriate sanction. See In re Driggers, 334 S.C. 40, 512 S.E.2d 112 (1999) (disbarring an attorney that had numerous complaints encompassing a multitude of issues, including but not limited to failing to provide competent representation; failing to keep a client reasonably informed; failing to consult with a client; failing to promptly account for and deliver funds; knowingly failing to respond to proceedings; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); In re Morris, 343 S.C. 651, 541 S.E.2d 844 (2001) (disbarring an attorney that had numerous complaints encompassing a multitude of issues, including but not limited to failing to provide competent representation; failing to keep clients reasonably informed; failing to safeguard the property of clients; failing to expedite litigation; and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation). Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and disbar Respondent from the practice of law in this state.

(Mike Frisch)