Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

322 S.C. 374

In re Glee

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 1, 1996

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1996-07-01

Decided 1996-07-01

Per Curiam:

¶1In this attorney disciplinary matter respondent admits he has committed misconduct and consents to a private or a public reprimand. We accept respondent’s conditional admission and publicly reprimand him.

¶2Respondent was retained by Lolita C.T. Hook in December 1989 to represent her regarding a claim for injuries she sustained in an automobile accident on December 1, 1989. Respondent failed to initiate an action for Ms. Hook within the applicable statute of limitations period and her action was barred. Respondent led Ms. Hood to believe that he had filed a complaint and that a trial was forthcoming.

¶3By his conduct respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, Rule 8.4(d); by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, Rule 1.3; by failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, Rule 1.4(a); and by engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, Rule 8.4(e). Additionally, respondent has violated Paragraph 5(E) of the Rules on Disciplinary Procedure, Rule 413, SCACR, by engaging in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute.

¶4We find respondent’s conduct warrants a public reprimand.

¶5Public reprimand.

*376/s/ Ernest A. Finney. Jr.. C.J./s/ Jean H. Toal. J./s/ James E. Moore. J./s/ E.C. Burnett. III. J.Waller, A.J., not participating.
/322/sc/374 · .json · Public domain