### THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

In the Matter John W. B ledsoe, III, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002322

Opinion No. 27778 Submitted February 21, 2018 – Filed March 14, 2018

PUBLIC REPRIMAND

John S. Nichols, Disciplinary Counsel, and Julie K. Martino, Assistant Disciplin ary Counsel, of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

John W. Bledsoe, III, of Darlington, pro Se

.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Offic e of Disciplinary Counsel have ente red into an Agreement for Disc ipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Discipl inary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to a confidential admonition or public reprimand. 1 As a condition of discipline, respondent agrees to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School within one year of being sanctioned. We accept the Agreement and issue a public reprimand. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, ar e as follows.

1 Respondent previously received an Admonition on December 19, 2 003, citing Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Comm unication), 1.15 (Safekeeping P roperty), 5.1 (Responsibilities of Partners, Man agers, and Supervisory Lawyer s), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(e) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC ), Rule 407, SCACR.Facts

Matter A

In early 2016, respondent was retained to represent Client A in a divorce and custody action. Following a temporary hearing, the judge award ed custody of one child to Client A and custody of the other child, as well as ch ild support, to Client A's spouse. Despite the fact chi ld support was to be paid mont hly, respondent prepared a temporary order requiring Client A to pay child supp ort weekly. Although respondent submitted an a mended temporary order to the judge which stated child support payments w ere to be made monthly, funds we re garnished from Client A's payroll checks on four occasions for weekly pay ments as a result of the original order, causing Client A to experience financial difficulties, including difficulties paying for rent, utilities, and food.

Matter B

Respondent was retained to represent Client B in a divorce and custody action after Client B, while being represente d by another attorney, lost cus tody of her child at a temporary hearing. Client B's s pouse died before the final hearing could be held. Subsequently, the family court aw arded temporary custody of Cli ent B's child to the sister of Client B's spouse (Aunt) and the sister's husband (Uncle). Shortly after the temporary hearing in which custody was awarded to Aun t and Uncle, Client B released respondent a nd retained a new attorney.

At some point during his repre sentation of Client B, respondent expressed to Client B that he was interested in a sexual relationship with her. Re spondent asked Client B to show him her breasts. Client B showed respondent her breasts, but felt ashamed and humiliated. Respondent and Client B did not engage in a sexual relationship.

Law

Respondent admits that, in Matter A, his mistake in drafting th e original order and his delay in recognizing the mistake and submitting an amended order violated Rule 1.3, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR ("A lawyer shall act with reason able diligence and promptness in representing a client."). With regard to Mat ter B, respondent admits that in requesting to see Client B's breasts, he violated Rule 1.7(a)(2), RPC,Rule 407, SCACR ("Except as provi ded in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the repres entation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: . . . (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more c lients will be materially limite d . . . by a personal interest of the lawyer.") and Ru le 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR ("It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (e) engage in co nduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.]"). Finally, re spondent admits the allegations contained in the Agre ement constitute grounds for d iscipline under Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SCA CR ("It shall be a ground for discipline for a lawyer to: (1) violate or attemp t to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, or any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding p rofessional conduct of lawyers[.]").

Conclusion

We find respondent's misconduc t warrants a public reprimand. A ccordingly, we accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct. Respondent shall complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School within one year of the date of this opinion.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTRED GE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.