Pride Before The Fall

Misconduct in two matters drew disbarment by the South Carolina Supreme Court

As to his financial misconduct, Respondent explains that after his arrest and the related media coverage, his personal and professional life “came crashing down.” Respondent explains that the resulting shame and humiliation caused him to examine his life and determine three things: (1) that his family had been living beyond its means for years and was in poor shape financially; (2) that he had become prideful and lazy and was not working as hard as he should have been at his law practice; and (3) that he had a years-long problem with alcohol and was an alcoholic, which led to “delusional thinking” that somehow everything would work out even though Respondent had no plan to repair his family’s finances. Respondent states that in August 2022, he and his wife sold the family home, which allowed them to pay off all their debt, including what he had borrowed to fund his children’s education. Respondent and his wife now live modestly with manageable expenses. Respondent also explains that he is proactively managing his alcoholism, attends AA meetings every morning, and intends to live an alcohol-free life. Respondent describes this experience as transformative and asks the Court to impose a definite suspension, rather than disbarment, to allow him the opportunity to seek reinstatement and eventually continue his thirty-seven-year career practicing law. In requesting a definite suspension, Respondent emphasizes: (1) his lack of prior discipline; (2) his self-report and cooperation with ODC; (3) his acknowledgement of his mistakes and genuine expression of remorse; (4) he actively sought help to address his alcohol addiction; (5) his restitution to the client, including refunding earned fees to Client A.

Also included with Respondent’s affidavit in mitigation are character letters from five distinguished members of the Bar, all of whom vouch for Respondent’s overall character and ability to continue to positively contribute to the community if he is allowed to continue practicing law.

“This Court has never regarded financial misconduct lightly, particularly when such misconduct concerns expenditure of client funds or other improper use of trust funds.” In re Webb, 444 S.C. 216, 223, 906 S.E.2d 584, 588 (2024) (quoting In re Wern, 431 S.C. 643, 649, 849 S.E.2d 898, 901 (2020)). We commend Respondent for the steps he has taken to overcome his addiction and take responsibility for his mistakes. However, in light of Respondent’s admitted misappropriation of client funds, which is extremely serious misconduct, we find disbarment is the appropriate sanction. See Webb, 444 S.C. at 223, 906 S.E.2d at 588 (finding disbarment was appropriate for misappropriation of client funds); In re Gundling, 442 S.C. 429, 437, 900 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2024) (finding disbarment was appropriate for misappropriation of client funds); In re Lynn, 439 S.C. 118, 126, 886 S.E.2d 215, 219–20 (2023) (finding disbarment was appropriate for misappropriation of client funds and neglect of client matters). Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and disbar Respondent from the practice of law in this state.

(Mike Frisch)