THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Christi Anne Misocky, Respondent 

Appellate Case No. 2021-001258 

Opinion No. 28079 

Submitted December 30, 2021 – Filed January 19, 2022 

DISBARRED 

Disciplinary Counsel John S. Nichols and Assistant 

Disciplinary Counsel Julie K. Martino, both of Columbia, 

for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Jonathan M. Harvey, of Columbia, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office 

of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by 

Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary 

Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court 

Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct, consents to 

disbarment, and agrees to pay restitution and costs. We accept the Agreement and 

disbar Respondent from the practice of law in this state. The facts, as set forth in 

the Agreement, are as follows. 

I. 

Matter A 

Client A hired Respondent in late 2016 to handle a child support modification 

action after Client A's ex-wife filed a Rule to Show Cause. The York County 

Family Court issued a temporary order in December 2016. Respondent failed to 

adequately communicate with Client A about the status of the action until a hearing 

was scheduled for August 7, 2017. Prior to the hearing, on August 3, 2017, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent filed a Rule to Show Cause due to ex-wife's alleged failure to comply 

with the temporary order. The hearing was continued and mediation was 

scheduled for September 22, 2017. Respondent did not communicate with Client 

A about the reason for the continuance or the mediation and failed to diligently 

work on the case. Respondent and Client A signed a consent order to withdraw as 

counsel for Client A on September 18, 2017. The family court signed and filed the 

consent order a week later. The case was eventually dismissed pursuant to the 

365-day rule. 

ODC mailed Respondent a notice of investigation on September 29, 2017, 

requesting a response within fifteen days. Having received no response, ODC 

served Respondent with a letter pursuant to In re Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 

240 (1982), on October 30, 2017, again requesting a response. The certified letter, 

which was sent to Respondent's AIS address, was returned unclaimed. On 

November 14, 2017, ODC served Respondent at her AIS address with a subpoena 

requiring Respondent to provide a copy of Client A's file. 

Respondent submitted a response to the notice of investigation and subpoena on 

December 18, 2017. Respondent did not address Client A's allegations, instead 

claiming Client A's wife filed the complaint due to a personal grudge Client A's 

wife had with Respondent. In response to the subpoena for the client file, 

Respondent provided only an invoice of fees charged, a copy of the motion to 

withdraw as counsel for Client A, and a copy of a proposed order of continuance 

dated August 3, 2017. Respondent provided an additional response on March 7, 

2018, in which she denied Client A's allegations but provided no additional 

documentation from the file or other evidence to support her denial. 

Respondent admits her conduct in this matter violated the following Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (requiring diligence); Rule 1.4 

(requiring adequate communication); Rule 8.1(b) (prohibiting a knowing failure to 

respond to an ODC inquiry); and Rule 8.4(e) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the 

administration of justice). 

Matter B 

Client B hired Respondent on December 12, 2016, to bring a foreclosure action 

against a borrower. Client B made three payments totaling $5,297.50 for the 

representation. Respondent filed the foreclosure action in York County on March 

27, 2017. Respondent was late to the first hearing in the case, and when she did 

arrive, she was not prepared. The master-in-equity continued the hearing and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rescheduled it, but Respondent failed to appear for the second hearing. Thereafter, 

communications between Client B and Respondent broke down. Client B 

attempted to call Respondent several times with no success. Client B also emailed 

Respondent in an attempt to reach her, but Respondent did not respond. The 

master-in-equity issued a notice of foreclosure sale on September 21, 2017. 

Respondent submitted a revised affidavit of attorney's fees on September 27, 2017, 

in which she requested $5,597.50 in fees—$300 more than Client B had already 

paid Respondent. 

The master-in-equity accepted the highest bid offered at the public sale on 

November 6, 2017. He issued an order of sale and disbursement on November 20, 

2017, along with a check in the amount of $44,611.50, payable to Respondent and 

Client B. The check represented the net proceeds of the sale, including attorney's 

fees and costs. On December 13, 2017, the master-in-equity issued an order for 

disbursement of funds, in which he observed that Respondent and Client B had a 

dispute over the amount of attorney's fees and costs and noted that the check had 

not yet been negotiated. The master-in-equity ordered Respondent to deposit the 

check into her trust account and to pay Client B the proceeds of the sale, plus 

reimbursement to Client B of any amounts already paid to Respondent. 

Respondent endorsed the check and attempted to deposit it without Client B's 

endorsement. The bank refused the check, and Respondent subsequently lost the 

check. 

On December 28, 2017, the master-in-equity emailed Respondent, reminding her 

that she should have properly endorsed the check and deposited the funds in her 

trust account. The master issued a replacement check, required Respondent to pay 

$30.00 to stop payment on the first check, and informed Respondent that she was 

required to disburse the funds in accordance with his December 13, 2017 order. 

Respondent held back the entire $5,597.50 as attorney's fees, even though Client B 

had already paid her $5,297.50, and she was entitled to keep only an additional 

$300. Client B filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and was 

awarded $5,297.50. 

ODC mailed Respondent a notice of investigation to her AIS address on November 

14, 2017, requesting a response within fifteen days. Also on November 14, 2017, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ODC served Respondent at her AIS address with a subpoena requiring her to 

provide a copy of Client B's file. 

Respondent provided a response on December 18, 2017, that did not address the 

allegations of misconduct. Instead, Respondent blamed her paralegal for 

encouraging Client B to file a complaint. In response to the subpoena for the client 

file, Respondent provided only one email from her paralegal to Client B, one page 

of the master's order for disbursement of funds, and receipts of fee payments Client 

B made to Respondent. 

Respondent admits her conduct in this matter violated the following Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (requiring diligence); Rule 1.4 

(requiring adequate communication); Rule 1.15 (requiring the safekeeping and 

prompt delivery of client funds); Rule 8.1(b) (prohibiting a knowing failure to 

respond to an ODC inquiry); and Rule 8.4(e) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the 

administration of justice). 

Matter C 

On January 19, 2017, Respondent conducted a real estate closing on property 

owned by Client C. After the closing, Client C realized the following errors in the 

closing disclosure: the closing date was incorrect; the amount of closing costs, set 

forth in two separate places, was listed inconsistently; an addendum stated that a 

second mortgage loan was to be paid off as part of the closing, but no second 

mortgage existed; and the alleged amount of the second mortgage, $906.50, was 

the same amount as the "Deed Stamps for Transfer" item on the closing disclosure. 

Client C and her real estate agent (Agent) attempted to contact Respondent several 

times over the next two weeks to get clarification about the closing disclosure. 

Respondent did not respond to calls, text messages, or emails. On February 10, 

2017, Client C and Agent went to Respondent's office. Respondent met with them 

but could not locate the file associated with the closing. On February 27, 2017, 

Respondent emailed Client C a revised closing disclosure, explaining that last 

minute changes in the terms and a software glitch caused the errors. The revised 

closing disclosure corrected only some of the prior errors and contained several 

additional errors. Client C sent two registered letters to Respondent requesting an 

explanation of the closing disclosure, but Respondent never responded. 

Respondent overcharged Client C $500 in closing costs. 

On January 2, 2018, Client C filed a complaint against Respondent. ODC mailed 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent a notice of investigation to her AIS address on January 23, 2018, 

requesting a response within fifteen days. Having received no response, ODC 

served Respondent with a Treacy letter on February 12, 2018, again requesting a 

response. On February 15, 2018, ODC served Respondent at her AIS address with 

a subpoena requiring her to provide a copy of Client C's closing documents and 

Respondent's trust account records required under Rule 417, SCACR. The 

certified letter and subpoena were both returned to ODC as unclaimed. 

Respondent provided a response to the notice of investigation on March 7, 2018, in 

which she blamed last minute changes and a software glitch for the errors and did 

not explain why she failed to correct all of the errors in the closing disclosure. 

Respondent provided closing documents and some bank statements in response to 

ODC's subpoena, but she failed to provide complete records as required under Rule 

417, SCACR. 

Respondent admits her conduct in this matter violated the following Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (requiring thoroughness and 

preparation); Rule 8.1(b) (prohibiting a knowing failure to respond to an ODC 

inquiry); and Rule 8.4(e) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of 

justice). 

Matter D 

On February 13, 2018, ODC received a complaint involving Respondent. ODC 

investigated the allegations but was unable to obtain clear and convincing evidence 

that Respondent had committed misconduct. However, Respondent failed to 

respond to ODC's March 3, 2018 notice of investigation or ODC's April 25, 2018 

Treacy Letter, both of which were sent to Respondent's AIS address.1 Respondent 

admits her failure to respond to the notice of investigation in this matter violated 

Rule 8.1(b), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (prohibiting a knowing failure to respond to 

an ODC inquiry). 

1 The April 25, 2018 Treacy Letter, which was sent certified mail, was ultimately 

returned to ODC as unclaimed. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matter E 

On February 15, 2019, Respondent was arrested on two counts of forgery under 

state law. On March 1, 2019, this Court issued an order placing Respondent on 

interim suspension. In re Misocky, 425 S.C. 614, 825 S.E.2d 48 (2019). 

Respondent was subsequently indicted on numerous federal criminal charges 

involving conspiracy, forgery, counterfeiting, and identity theft, and the state 

charges were eventually dismissed in favor of federal prosecution. 

The basis for the federal charges was that Respondent conveyed personal client 

information to two other individuals who used that information to make and pass 

counterfeit and forged securities in the names of the clients. These two other 

individuals deposited the money from the forged securities into a designated 

account from which Respondent paid them a percentage of the fraudulently 

obtained proceeds. Additionally, Respondent endorsed stolen checks; attempted to 

use another person's identity to facilitate a vehicle trade; possessed a fake driver's 

license and social security card and attempted to use them to purchase a car; 

purchased a different vehicle using a false identity; and possessed and passed two 

counterfeit checks with the intent to defraud a car dealership. 

On July 6, 2021, Respondent entered into a plea agreement in which she agreed to 

plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy in exchange for the dismissal of the 

remaining five federal charges. Her guilty plea was entered on August 2, 2021. 

Respondent has not yet been sentenced. 

ODC sent Respondent a notice of investigation on November 25, 2020, requesting 

a response within fifteen days. This notice was sent to Respondent's AIS email 

address and her AIS mailing address, along with two other email addresses and one 

other mailing address Respondent had previously provided. Respondent never 

responded to the notice of investigation. 

Respondent admits her conduct in this matter violated the following Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 8.1(b) (prohibiting a knowing 

failure to respond to an ODC inquiry); Rule 8.4(b) (prohibiting criminal acts that 

reflect adversely upon a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer); 

Rule 8.4(c) (prohibiting criminal acts involving moral turpitude); and Rule 8.4(d) 

(prohibiting conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 

Matter F 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent is also licensed to practice law in North Carolina. In 2017, the North 

Carolina Bar began an investigation based on several insufficient funds notices on 

Respondent's law firm IOLTA accounts with Wells Fargo. The preliminary 

investigation indicated Respondent mishandled funds. Initially, Respondent 

expressed a desire to cooperate with the North Carolina Bar and entered into a 

Consent Order of Preliminary Injunction on August 4, 2017, in which Respondent 

was enjoined from accepting or receiving any funds against any account in which 

client funds had been deposited. Respondent agreed to produce comprehensive 

records of all such funds to the North Carolina Bar. Although she initially 

provided some of the records requested by the North Carolina Bar, Respondent did 

not provide all of the required information and stopped communicating or 

cooperating with the investigation after August 2017. 

On October 12, 2017, Respondent visited a branch of Bank of America in 

Ballantyne, North Carolina, and opened two new checking accounts and one 

savings account in her law firm's name. Thereafter, Respondent relocated her 

practice to South Carolina, and she accepted and disbursed client money through 

the new Bank of America accounts until February 2018. Respondent also 

commingled personal funds with client funds in these accounts. 

On June 7, 2021, the North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission 

entered an order suspending Respondent from the practice of law based on her 

failure to comply with the investigation of seventeen grievances pending against 

her.2 Specifically, the order found Respondent failed to provide requested records 

and information, failed to fully cooperate with a subpoena for an audit, failed to 

respond to several letters of notice, and failed to cooperate with the North Carolina 

State Bar's effort to serve letters on her. 

Respondent admits her conduct in this matter violated the following Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.15(a) (prohibiting the 

commingling of funds and requiring compliance with financial recordkeeping 

rules); Rule 1.15(b) (prohibiting the deposit of a lawyer's own funds in a client 

trust account beyond an amount necessary to pay account service charges); Rule 

8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

2 Twelve of these grievances were filed in 2017. Four more grievances were filed 

in 2018, and the remaining one was filed in 2020. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

misrepresentation).3 Respondent also admits her conduct violates the following 

North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct found in Chapter 2 of Title 27 of the 

North Carolina Administrative Code: Rule 1.15-2 (requiring a lawyer to safekeep 

entrusted property); Rule 1.15-3 (establishing requirements for financial 

recordkeeping); Rule 8.1(b) (prohibiting a knowing failure to respond to a lawful 

disciplinary inquiry); Rule 8.4(b) (prohibiting criminal acts that reflect adversely 

on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer); and Rule 8.4(c) 

(prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 

II. 

Respondent admits her misconduct in the above matters constitutes grounds for 

discipline under the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 

413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (committing violations of the Rules of Professional 

Conduct); Rule 7(a)(2) (engaging in conduct that violates rules of professional 

conduct from another jurisdiction); Rule 7(a)(3) (prohibiting a willful failure to 

comply with disciplinary subpoenas or a knowing failure to respond to an ODC 

inquiry); Rule 7(a)(4) (being convicted of a serious crime or crime of moral 

turpitude); Rule 7(a)(5) (engaging in conduct tending to pollute the administration 

of justice or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law); Rule 7(a)(6) 

(violating the lawyer's oath found in Rule 402(h)(3), SCACR); and Rule 7(a)(7) 

(willfully violating a court order issued by a court in this state or another 

jurisdiction). 

In the Agreement, Respondent consents to disbarment and requests that the 

sanction be imposed retroactively to the date of her interim suspension. ODC does 

not oppose Respondent's request for retroactivity. Respondent also agrees to pay, 

within thirty days, the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this 

matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct, to reimburse Client C in 

the amount of $500, and to reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection for 

any claims paid on her behalf. 

3 "A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary 

authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs." 

Rule 8.5(a), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. 
 

 

 

 

III. 

We accept the Agreement and disbar Respondent from the practice of law in this 

state, retroactive to March 1, 2019, which is the date of her interim suspension. 

Within fifteen (15) days of the date of this opinion, Respondent shall file an 

affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that she has complied with Rule 30, 

RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and she shall also surrender her Certificate of 

Admission to the Practice of Law to the Clerk of this Court. 

Within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion, Respondent shall pay or enter 

into a reasonable payment plan with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct to: (1) 

pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by 

Disciplinary Counsel and the Commission; (2) reimburse Client C in the amount of 

$500; and (3) reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection for any claims 

paid on Respondent's behalf. 

DISBARRED. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.