Title: In the Matter of Moore

State: south-carolina

Issuer: South Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

280 S.C. 178 (1984) 312 S.E.2d 1 In the Matter of Fred Henderson MOORE and Edward M. Brown, Respondents. 22036 Supreme Court of South Carolina. January 24, 1984. *179 Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Atty. Gen. Clifford O. Koon, Jr., Columbia, for complainant. Morris D. Rosen and William H. Grimball, Charleston, for respondents. Jan. 24, 1984. Per Curiam: This is an attorney grievance matter dealing with the misuse of an attorneys' trust account. Respondent Fred Henderson Moore and Respondent Edward M. Brown are partners practicing law in the city of Charleston. Respondent Moore has been at the bar for more than twenty years and Respondent Brown has been practicing for approximately five years. Respondent Moore has previously been before the Court in a disciplinary matter resulting in a finding of misconduct and a public reprimand, wherein this Court said: The complaint which brings the current matter to the Court charged: The evidence was taken before a hearing panel resulting in a recommendation, by a two to one vote, that both respondents be permanently disbarred from the practice of law, with one member voting that both respondents be indefinitely suspended. The action of the Panel was reviewed by the Executive Committee of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. It accepted the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Its independent recommendation as to sanction was that Respondent Moore be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and that Respondent Brown be publicly reprimanded. Rule 8 C of this Court's Rules on Disciplinary procedure provides as follows: While this rule mandates at least indefinite suspension for Moore, this case would independently require this sanction. The report of the Hearing Panel is abundantly substantiated by the record. From it, we quote: The panel exonerated the Respondents from splitting fees with laymen, but incident thereto said: *182 In conclusion, the Panel summarizes the charge as follows: The observation of the Panel indicates a keen understanding of the duties of an attorney in dealing with other people's money. It said: This case emphasizes the need for a rule governing the handling of trust accounts in this state. Attention is also called to DR 9-102 of Supreme Court Rule 32, the Code of Professional Responsibility, entitled Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of a Client, provides in part: While there is substantial thinking on the part of the Court that Respondent Moore should be disbarred and Respondent Brown indefinitely suspended, the consensus of thinking of the Court is that Respondent Moore be indefinitely suspended and that Respondent Brown be publicly reprimanded. In one sense of the word, the two are equally culpable, but it is apparent that Respondent Brown is comparatively inexperienced and he was, in large measure, following the dictates of his senior partner. Additionally, Respondent Brown has not heretofore been sanctioned by the Court for misconduct. In giving each of the Respondents the benefit of the doubt as to sanction, the Court has taken into consideration the fact that the clients of the Respondents have not suffered financial loss resulting from the misconduct of the two. It is, therefore, ordered that the Respondent Fred Henderson Moore be, and he is, hereby, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in this state. It is further ordered that he shall, within five days from the date of the filing of this order, surrender his certificate to practice to the Clerk of this Court. If is further ordered that Respondent Edward M. Brown be, and he is, hereby, Publicly Reprimanded. NESS, Justice, concurring: Being bound by Rule 8(C) of the Court's Rules on Disciplinary Procedure, I concur in this opinion and sanction, but believe that a public reprimand for each of the parties under the facts of this case would be sufficient punishment.