Misleading The Magistrate

Practice after an administrative suspension led to a one-year suspension by the South Carolina Supreme Court

On June 20, 2023, Respondent appeared as counsel before the James Island Magistrates Court to represent two individuals in a traffic court matter. The court’s case management system reflected that Respondent was not eligible to practice law.

The magistrate invited Respondent into chambers and showed Respondent the written communication from South Carolina Court Administration reflecting Respondent’s inability to practice law. In response, Respondent indicated that the information was incorrect, and Respondent told the magistrate that he had been reinstated months ago. Respondent also told the magistrate he had an order of reinstatement at his office.

The magistrate accepted Respondent’s word that Respondent had been reinstated and allowed Respondent to represent the two individuals on their traffic tickets. After the hearing, the magistrate instructed his clerk to contact Respondent by telephone and direct Respondent to fax his letter of reinstatement to the court by close of business that day, June 20, 2023.

After several unsuccessful attempts to contact Respondent, the court issued an order requiring Respondent’s appearance on June 28, 2023. Respondent appeared as ordered, and at the hearing, Respondent admitted to the magistrate that his license was suspended at the time of his appearance on June 20, 2023, and that he lied to the court about having an order of reinstatement.

The court also asked Respondent whether he had appeared before any other courts during his suspension. Respondent initially denied any appearances, but when questioned about his appearance before another magistrate in April 2023,  Respondent admitted the appearance and stated that he had forgotten. As a result of Respondent’s dishonesty, the magistrate held Respondent in contempt of court.

The court

An attorney’s obligation to tell the truth is fundamental to the ethical practice of law, and a failure to be truthful undermines both the proceeding at hand and public confidence in the overall administration of justice in South Carolina. Accordingly, this Court views acts of dishonesty with the utmost scrutiny and disfavor. In light of Respondent’s absence from the practice of law since March 3, 2023, we find a one-year definite suspension from today’s date will suffice as an adequate sanction for Respondent’s serious misconduct.2 Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and suspend Respondent from the practice of law in this state for one year from today’s date.

2 Had Respondent not been already administratively suspended for over two years, it is likely the outcome of this case would be different.

(Mike Frisch)