THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Howard B. Hammer, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2016-000452 

Opinion No. 27618 

Submitted March 10, 2016 – Filed March 30, 2016 

DEFINITE SUSPENSION 

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Julie K. 

Martino, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of 

Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Thomas H. Pope, III, Esquire, of Pope & Hudgens, PA, 

of Newberry, 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 and consents to 

the imposition of a definite suspension not to exceed one year. Respondent 

requests that the suspension be made retroactive to the date of interim suspension.1 

In addition, respondent agrees to pay the costs incurred by ODC and the 

Commission on Lawyer Conduct in the investigation and prosecution of this matter 

within thirty days of the imposition of discipline and to complete the Legal Ethics 

and Practice Program Ethics School prior to reinstatement. We accept the 

Agreement and suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state for one 

year. The suspension shall not be retroactive to the date of interim suspension. 

The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows. 

1

 Respondent was placed on interim suspension on June 22, 2012. In re Hammer, 398 S.C. 593, 

730 S.E.2d 856 (2012). 
 

 

Facts 

On June 25, 2012, respondent was charged with first degree assault and battery, 

malicious injury to personal property, hit and run or leaving the scene with 

property damage, and unlawful conduct towards a child. The charges resulted 

from an incident involving a process server who was attempting to serve 

documents on respondent in connection with a family court proceeding. During 

the incident, respondent, who was with his two sons, twice made contact with the 

process server's vehicle while backing his car out of a parking space. Respondent 

left the scene, but later returned. 

On December 15, 2014, respondent pled guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. 

Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) to leaving the scene with 

property damage. He was sentenced to 364 days in prison, suspended upon six 

months' probation. The remaining charges were dismissed. 

Law 

Respondent admits his conduct constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4(e) of the Rules 

of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR,2

 and Rule 7(a)(1) of the Rules for 

Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR.3 

Conclusion 

We accept the Agreement and suspend respondent from the practice of law for one 

year from the date of this opinion. Respondent shall, within thirty days of the date 

of this opinion, pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this 

matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. In addition, respondent 

shall complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School prior to 

reinstatement. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file 

an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing he has complied with Rule 30 of Rule 

413, SCACR. 

2

 It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the 

administration of justice. Rule 8.4(d), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. 

3

 It shall be a ground for discipline for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, or any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding 

professional conduct of lawyers. Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. 
 

DEFINITE SUSPENSION. 

BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur.
 

I would run the one year suspension retroactive to the date of respondent's 

interim suspension.
 

PLEICONES, C.J.