A public reprimand with monitoring for two years was imposed by the South Carolina Supreme Court of a 70-year old attorney who has not practiced for over 20 years.

He had been inactive since 2011.

The misconduct

Respondent was arrested on misdemeanor charges on four occasions: February 3, 2013, for shoplifting; September 23, 2013, for possession of cocaine and multiple driving offenses; October 13, 2013, for open container; and on May 24, 2015, for public disorderly conduct. Following his arrest on June 26, 2013, respondent was indicted on May 5, 2014, for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, possession of cocaine, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Respondent was incarcerated on June 23, 2015, for 120 days pursuant to a civil contempt order issued by the Fifth Judicial Circuit Family Court for failure to pay court-ordered spousal support. Respondent was released in September 2015 and the felony charges were resolved with a sentence of time served.

His crimes presented an opportunity

On May 25, 2015, respondent received a telephone call from someone he met while attending drug court related to his own criminal charges. The caller told respondent that the child of a friend was in jail and asked if respondent would talk to the caller’s friend. Respondent spoke with the caller’s friend (the juvenile’s father) and told him that he had not practiced law in twenty years, that his license was not current, and that he had very little experience in criminal court. Respondent advised the father that he would attempt to contact the public defender on the juvenile’s behalf. Respondent agreed to meet the juvenile and the family at the courthouse prior to the hearing. Respondent was unable to reach the public defender prior to the scheduled hearing. In a misguided attempt to help the juvenile and his family, respondent agreed to appear at the hearing.

On May 26, 2015, respondent appeared in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Family Court on behalf of the juvenile who had been charged with a serious crime. Respondent represented to the judge that his Bar status was inactive and he was “in the process of reactivating at this moment.” The judge allowed respondent to participate in the hearing. Respondent proceeded to cross-examine the state’s witnesses and called the juvenile’s parents to testify.

The monitoring is with the Bar’s Lawyers Helping Lawyers program. (Mike Frisch)