THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Shawn M. Campbell, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2021-000252 

Opinion No. 28061 

Submitted September 3, 2021 – Filed September 22, 2021 

DEFINITE SUSPENSION 

Disciplinary Counsel John S. Nichols and Assistant 

Disciplinary Counsel Julie K. Martino, both of Columbia, 

for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Shawn M. Campbell, of Spartanburg, Pro Se. 

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 public reprimand or a definite suspension of up to one year. 

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

state for four months. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows. 

I. 

Matter A 

On October 20, 2015, Respondent's bank notified the Commission on Lawyer 

Conduct that a check in the amount of $1,000 was presented against insufficient 

funds in Respondent's trust account. ODC sent a notice of investigation. On 

November 16, 2015, ODC received what purported to be a response to the notice 
 

of investigation from Respondent. It was later discovered this response was 

written by Respondent's office manager, who intercepted letters from ODC and 

provided responses without Respondent's knowledge or consent. This response 

indicated that the office manager was late in taking a deposit to the bank, which 

resulted in the insufficient funds. The response also indicated that the funds were 

deposited and the account was reconciled. 

Because the response did not adequately explain the reason for the insufficient 

funds notice or include requested documentation, ODC requested clarification and 

additional documentation from Respondent. On December 11, 2015, the office 

manager provided a supplemental response that appeared to be from Respondent. 

In the response, the office manager attempted to explain that $1,000 was 

erroneously transferred between accounts and caused the insufficient funds 

notification. The office manager did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the 

insufficient funds, nor did she provide all of the information requested by ODC. 

Thereafter, Respondent eventually produced additional information that revealed 

the firm's trust account was short by $3,306.05. Thus, the shortage was caused by 

more than the $1,000 untimely deposit discussed in the office manager's response. 

The ODC investigation revealed that several cash receipts reflected on client 

ledgers were never deposited into the trust account. Disbursements were made 

from the trust account against the money that was never deposited. In at least one 

instance, client money that should have been deposited into the trust account was 

deposited into the operating account instead. 

Respondent admits his conduct in this matter violated Rule 1.15(f), RPC, Rule 407, 

SCACR (prohibiting disbursement before deposit in the trust account) and Rule 

417, SCACR (establishing financial recordkeeping requirements). 

Matter B 

On May 11, 2016, Respondent's bank notified the Commission on Lawyer Conduct 

that a check had been presented against insufficient funds in Respondent's trust 

account. The following day, ODC sent a notice of investigation to Respondent, 

who did not respond because the office manager intercepted the notice of 

investigation. On June 13, 2016, ODC sent Respondent a reminder pursuant to In 

re Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982), reminding him of his obligation to 

respond. Three days later, Respondent called ODC to say he had not received the 
notice of investigation and that he would provide a response within a few days. 

Respondent had not yet learned his office manager was intercepting his mail. 

On June 24, 2016, Respondent provided a response to ODC, explaining that after 

his law partner decided to leave their partnership to work with another firm, 

Respondent began the process of converting the partnership to a solo practice. 

Respondent explained that a substantial portion of the funds in the trust account at 

that time were attributed to his former partner's guardian ad litem files and that the 

unearned funds were transferred to his former partner's new firm. As to one client, 

Respondent's former law partner developed a conflict of interest based on his new 

employment. The client's ledger indicated there was $317.57 in Respondent's trust 

account. A check was written for that amount and forwarded to the client's new 

lawyer. This check was the one returned due to insufficient funds in the trust 

account which triggered the investigation of this matter. 

Respondent explained that when he received notice the check had been returned, 

he investigated and discovered a hand-written check that previously cleared the 

trust account had not been entered into the firm's accounting software, which 

caused the account to appear to have more funds than it actually did. Respondent 

was not performing monthly reconciliations of the trust account and failed to 

realize the handwritten check was unaccounted for until after the check at issue 

failed to clear the account. Respondent transferred funds to cover the check and 

the bank fees, then reissued a check to the client's new lawyer. The second check 

successfully cleared the trust account on May 17, 2016. 

Respondent admits his failure to keep clients' money safe violated Rule 1.15, RPC, 

Rule 407, SCACR (requiring lawyers to keep client property safe), and that his 

failure to reconcile the trust account violated Rule 417, SCACR (establishing 

financial recordkeeping requirements). 

Matter C 

During the course of ODC's investigation into Matters A and B, Respondent 

discovered the firm's office manager had responded to three letters from ODC 

without Respondent's knowledge or consent. According to the office manager, she 

responded to the letters without telling Respondent because two weeks before the 

first letter, Respondent's college-aged son tragically died in a car accident along 

with four other students. Respondent was out of the office frequently in the weeks 

and months following his son's death, which lead to the office manager 
intercepting the notices of investigation and responding without Respondent's 

knowledge. When Respondent discovered what happened, he terminated the office 

manager's employment. 

The ODC investigation revealed very little money ran through Respondent's trust 

account because the majority of his cases were on a flat-fee basis. Most of the 

money that was deposited into the trust account was attributed to guardian ad litem 

fees that were held in the trust account until earned. ODC's investigation further 

revealed that the office manager sometimes took cash that came in from clients for 

her personal use and later wrote personal checks to replace it. When Respondent's 

law partner left the firm and client money needed to be transferred to the new firm, 

the office manager made several deposits via personal checks to cover the shortage 

in the trust account to ensure the checks to the new firm would clear. 

Respondent admits that prior to 2017, he abdicated his responsibility for the trust 

account to the office manager. Respondent did not perform monthly 

reconciliations himself and did not adequately supervise the office manager to 

ensure she knew how to perform the reconciliations. In February 2017, 

Respondent attended the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Trust Account School. 

Based on a review of trust account records subsequently subpoenaed by ODC, 

Respondent is now properly performing trust account reconciliations. 

Respondent admits he failed to ensure the firm complied with the financial 

recordkeeping requirements of Rule 417, SCACR. He further admits his failure to 

timely deposit cash payments into the trust account, his actions in disbursing 

before deposit, and his failure to train and supervise the office manager's handling 

of the financial recordkeeping violated the following Rules of Professional 

Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.15(c) (requiring deposit of all unearned fees 

into the trust account); Rule 1.15(f) (requiring deposit before disbursement); Rule 

5.3(a) (requiring attorneys with managerial authority to make reasonable efforts to 

ensure the conduct of all firm employees is compatible with lawyers' professional 

obligations); Rule 5.3(b) (requiring an attorney to properly supervise non-lawyer 

staff members); and Rule 5.3(c) (requiring supervising attorneys to ensure conduct 

of staff is compatible with the Rules of Professional Conduct). 

Matter D 

In January 2017, ODC received a complaint about both Respondent and his former 

law partner regarding the handling of a matter for Client D. Respondent's former 
law partner assisted Client D with various family court matters over the course of 

several years. In 2011, Client D was charged with first-degree criminal sexual 

conduct, and Client D hired Respondent's firm to represent him on the criminal 

charge for an agreed-upon flat fee of $10,000. A $5,000 payment was made on 

Client D's behalf, and the fee was deposited into Respondent's operating account. 

Subsequent payments, made by Client D's family and friends, were held in trust 

until earned. Respondent and Client D did not execute a written fee agreement 

explaining the flat fee or that some funds would be held in trust. 

Respondent's former law partner was primarily responsible for Client D's ongoing 

family court matter, which concluded with the termination of Client D's parental 

rights in 2012. Respondent was initially responsible for Client D's criminal matter, 

although his former law partner ultimately handled a good portion of the trial. 

Client D was convicted in 2014 and hired Respondent's former law partner to 

handle the criminal appeal. The fee for the appeal was a flat fee of $3,000. 

Neither Respondent nor his former law partner executed a written fee agreement 

with Client D regarding the appeal. 

When Respondent's former law partner developed a conflict of interest after 

leaving the firm, Client D engaged new counsel to handle the appeal and requested 

that Respondent forward any remaining funds held in the trust account. 

Respondent forwarded a check in the amount of $317.57, which was returned after 

being presented against insufficient funds (as discussed in Matter B). Respondent 

also failed to provide a complete accounting to Client D. 

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

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.5(b) (requiring a lawyer to 

adequately explain the basis of the fee to a client); Rule 1.5(f) (requiring flat-fee 

agreements must be in writing); Rule 1.15 (requiring lawyers to keep client 

property safe and provide a full accounting). 

Matter E 

Beginning in 2010, Respondent delegated the preparation of payroll tax returns to 

the office manager. The office manager did not prepare tax returns for every tax 

reporting period, but when she did, taxes were withheld from employees' checks. 

Despite these withholdings, Respondent frequently failed to remit payroll taxes and 

unemployment insurance taxes to the South Carolina Department of Revenue 

(SCDOR), the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce 
 

 

(SCDEW), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). On many occasions, 

Respondent elected not to pay the payroll taxes or unemployment insurance 

because he did not have adequate cash flow to operate the law firm. SCDOR and 

SCDEW placed liens against the firm's assets and against Respondent and his 

former law partner in eight separate tax years from 2010 to 2019. The IRS placed 

liens against the firm's assets in five separate tax years from 2010 to 2016. All of 

the liens against the firm's assets were filed in Spartanburg County. Additional 

liens arising out of the failure to remit payroll tax withholdings were filed in 

Greenville County against Respondent and his former law partner personally. 

Respondent and his former law partner met with an IRS representative and set up a 

plan to pay the outstanding taxes, fines, and penalties. Respondent and his former 

law partner made their respective individual payments to satisfy the personal liens 

in Greenville County. Respondent continued to make payments on the 

Spartanburg County liens, and the firm's obligations to SCDOR and SCDEW are 

now satisfied. However, as to the federal tax obligations, the ODC investigation 

revealed that in 2020, Respondent still owed over $60,000 in unpaid taxes. At 

some point, the IRS determined the debt was "currently not collectable" and had 

not contacted Respondent since 2016. Respondent believed that because he had 

not been contacted by the IRS, his obligations had been satisfied. However, upon 

discovering the outstanding obligation, Respondent contacted the IRS to enter a 

payment plan to pay off the liens, all of which relate to tax periods prior to 2016.1 

Respondent admits his failure to remit payroll taxes and unemployment taxes 

violated Rule 8.4(d), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (prohibiting conduct involving 

dishonesty). 

II. 

Respondent admits his misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline under Rule 

7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (prohibiting a violation of the Rules of 

Professional Conduct). In the Agreement, Respondent consents to a public 

reprimand or definite suspension of up to one year and agrees to pay costs. 

1

 Although the Covid-19 pandemic has lengthened the negotiations process, 

Respondent has communicated with the IRS several times and is in the process of 

finalizing a settlement agreement to pay the taxes, penalties, and fines he owes. 
Respondent's disciplinary history includes a 2011 letter of caution citing Rule 1.15, 

RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring lawyers to keep client property safe) and Rule 

417, SCACR (establishing financial recordkeeping requirements). See Rule 2(s), 

RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (providing a letter of caution may be considered in a 

subsequent disciplinary proceeding if the warning contained therein is relevant to 

the misconduct involved in the subsequent proceeding). 

III. 

We find Respondent's misconduct warrants a definite suspension. Accordingly, we 

accept the Agreement and suspend Respondent from the practice of law in this 

state for a period of four months. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, 

Respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that he has 

complied with Rule 30 of Rule 413, SCACR. Within thirty days, Respondent shall 

pay or enter into a reasonable plan to repay the costs incurred in the investigation 

and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. 

DEFINITE SUSPENSION. 

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