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

In the Matter of Julie Maria Fitzharris, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002587

Opinion No. 27604 Submitted January 21, 2016 – Filed February 17, 2016

DEFINITE SUSPENSION

Lesley M. Coggiola, Discip linary Counsel, and Julie K. Martino, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Julie Maria Fitzharris, of F itzharris Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, pro se

.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have ente red into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 4 13 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agre ement, respondent admits mi sconduct and consents to the imposition of a definite suspension of nine (9) months with conditions. We accept the Agreement and susp end respondent from the practice of law in this state for three (3) months with conditions as stated hereafter. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

Facts

In October 2010, Client retain ed respondent to represent him in a negligence action for damages related to a burn he recei ved while receiving treatment at a chiropractor's office. Respondent attempted to negotiate with the defendant's insurance carrier but the adjuster was not interested in settling. Respondent then consulted with a chiropractor in Georgi a who reviewed the case, provided anaffidavit, and agreed to serve as an expert witness on Client's be half. In September 2012, respondent filed a Notice of Intent to File Suit.

The chiropractor's insurance carrier then agreed to for go mediation and to negotiate a settlement. Respondent believed the par ties had reached an agreement to settle the case for $ 3,200.00 and was expecting a check. Respondent neith er made a note of the date of this verbal agreement nor requested written confirmation of the settlement agreement.

In December 2014, respondent re viewed Client's file. She noted that there was no settlement check in the file but thought it was due to an administrative delay. On December 4, 2014, she delivered a check fo r $ 2,000.00 to Client and told Client the case had settled for $ 3,200.00 and she was advancing the $2,000.00 from her operating account. Respondent told Client she would give him the remainder of the settlement in January 2015. She apologized to Client for the time it had taken
to settle the case and that she would neith er take a fee nor reimburse herself for expenses. Respondent also stated the Medicare lien could take some time to
resolve. At the conclusion of that meeti ng, respondent put Client's file in the trunk of her car and did not follow up with C lient about outstanding issues. Respondent
did not retrieve the file from the trunk of her car until after she received the complaint in this matter.

When she reviewed the file in June 2015, respondent realized no settlement check had been received, no settlement statemen t had been signed, and the Medicare lien was still outstanding. Respondent found an email from defense counsel that she had not previously read that stated the case was not settled and that it had been
dismissed because the statute of lim itations had expired. Respondent acknowledges she failed to calendar the case in any way and, therefore, she missed
the statute of limitations.

During the pendency of Client 's case, respondent had seve ral surgeries on her back and shoulder, there were comp lications with almost all of the surgeries, and she was taking narcotics a nd muscle relaxers to alleviate the pain and muscle spasms. Respondent was, and still is, being treated fo r depression and anxiety in relation to her physical ailments. She acknowledges th at these physical and mental health issues contributed to the problems with Client's case.Law

Respondent admits that by her conduct she has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing client); Rule 1.8(h)(2) (lawyer shall not settle claim or potentia l claim for malpractice liability with unrepresented client unless that person is advised in writing of desirability of seeking and is given reasonable opportunity to seek advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith); Rule 1.16(a)(2) (lawyer shall withdraw from representation when lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs lawyer's ability to represent client); Rule 3.2 (lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with inte rests of client); Rule 8.4(d) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to e ngage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresent ation); and Rule 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct prejudici al to administration of justice).

Respondent also admits she has violated the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct) and Rule 7(a)(6) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to violate oath of office contained in Rule 4012(k), SCACR).

Conclusion

We accept the Agreement and suspend re spondent from the practice of law for three (3) months. In addition, respondent shall complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School, Trus t Account School, and Law Office Management School within one year prior to filing any Petition for Reinstatement. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that sh e has complied with Rule 30 of Rule 413,
SCACR.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTR EDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.