THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Kenneth Philip Shabel, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2021-000268 

Opinion No. 28059 

Submitted September 3, 2021 – Filed September 22, 2021 

PUBLIC REPRIMAND 

Disciplinary Counsel John S. Nichols and Assistant 

Disciplinary Counsel Julie K. Martino, both of Columbia, 

for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Kenneth Philip Shabel, 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 confidential admonition or a public reprimand. We accept 

the Agreement and issue a public reprimand. The facts, as set forth in the 

Agreement, are as follows. 

I. 

Matter A 

In 2007, Client A retained Respondent for assistance with obtaining visitation with 

his daughter. Client A lived in Virginia and the child lived in South Carolina with 

her mother and step-father. Respondent was successful in obtaining visitation for 
Client A, but several months later, the child's mother filed an action to terminate 

Client A's parental rights. The termination of parental rights case went to trial in 

2010. Respondent again prevailed, and Client A's visitation rights were restored. 

In 2011, the child disclosed sexual abuse by Client A. Client A was arrested and 

charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor. Respondent told 

Client A that his law partner had experience with handling criminal cases, and 

Client A, with the help of his father, retained the firm for representation on the 

criminal matter. The firm charged Client A $10,000. Client A paid $5,000 up 

front, and the other $5,000 came in contributions made throughout the 

representation by friends and family members. The firm did not keep an 

accounting of when and how the fee was earned. 

The child's mother refiled for termination of Client A's parental rights. Respondent 

and his law partner agreed that Respondent would focus on the termination of 

parental rights matter, while his law partner would focus on the criminal matter. 

Client A's parental rights were terminated in October 2012. Respondent and Client 

A discussed filing an appeal, but Client A ultimately decided not to appeal and 

focus on the criminal case. 

Respondent and his law partner prepared the criminal case together and divided the 

duties. Ultimately, Client A was convicted. Client A and his family discussed 

filing an appeal and retained Respondent's firm to handle the appeal. The firm 

charged Client A $3,000 for representation on the appeal and held the money in the 

firm's trust account until used. Client A then hired a different attorney to write the 

appellate briefs and assist Respondent with the appeal. In early 2016, the court of 

appeals held oral arguments. The attorney from the other law firm handled the oral 

argument. 

Shortly thereafter, Respondent went to work for the firm that represented the 

mother in the underlying family court matter. Respondent informed Client A of 

his move to the new firm and notified Client A that he could no longer represent 

him due to the potential conflict of interest. Respondent filed a motion to be 

relieved. Respondent informed Client A that the $317.57 remaining in the firm's 

trust account would be sent to his new attorney. The law firm sent a check, but it 

was returned due to insufficient funds in the firm's trust account. 

Client A's father requested an accounting of how the funds provided for Client A's 

defense were used. He also filed a complaint with ODC. In response to the notice 
 

of investigation, Respondent stated he had already left the firm and could not 

provide an accounting. Respondent's former law partner provided ODC with an 

accounting of the funds paid for the criminal appeal. That accounting indicated 

$317.57 remained on Client A's ledger; however, Respondent did not provide an 

accounting of the funds paid for the criminal trial. Respondent also indicated that 

he did not have signatory authority on the trust account, did not participate in 

monthly reconciliations, and assumed the account was being properly managed by 

his law partner and the firm's office manager. 

Respondent admits the flat-fee agreements should have been in writing; that he 

should have been able to provide Client A with an accounting upon request; and 

that he failed to keep his client's money safe. Respondent admits his conduct in 

this matter violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct in Rule 407, 

SCACR: Rule 1.5(f) (requiring flat-fee agreements to be in writing) and Rule 1.15 

(requiring lawyers to keep client property safe). 

Matter B 

Two checks from Respondent's former firm's trust account were presented against 

insufficient funds. As to the first check, ODC sent a notice of investigation, but 

the firm's office manager intercepted the notice and responded herself without 

informing Respondent or his law partner. The second check was returned when 

the firm attempted to refund Client A the remaining funds it held on his behalf. 

Respondent again responded to ODC that he never had signatory authority on the 

firm's trust account, did not participate in monthly reconciliations, and did not take 

steps to ensure that the reconciliations were being performed. Respondent 

explained that he relied on his law partner to handle all financial matters for the 

firm. 

Respondent admits he abdicated his responsibility for the trust account and that he 

did not discuss the requirements of Rule 417, SCACR, with his law partner. 

Respondent acknowledges he should have taken steps to ensure the firm was 

reconciling the trust account pursuant to Rule 417, SCACR. See Rule 1.15(a), 

RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (mandating compliance with Rule 417, SCACR). 
Matter C 

Respondent was a partner in his former law firm from September 2006 until March 

2016. Respondent admits he knew payroll taxes were required to be paid but 

believed his law partner was responsible for the taxes and paid them. In 2012, 

Respondent received a notice from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stating that 

as a partner in the firm, he was responsible for payroll taxes that had not been paid. 

After receiving the IRS notice, Respondent learned that although many payroll tax 

returns were submitted and taxes were withheld from employees' checks, the taxes 

had not been remitted to the IRS. Respondent discussed the tax issues with his law 

partner, and together they met with an IRS representative. The firm entered into an 

agreement to pay $2,000 per month for the unpaid payroll taxes and penalties. 

Unbeknownst to Respondent until 2012, the IRS, the South Carolina Department 

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

Workforce (SCDEW) had begun placing liens against the law firm's assets based 

on the failure to pay payroll taxes and unemployment insurance beginning in 2009. 

The IRS, SCDOR, and SCDEW placed liens against the firm's assets in 

Spartanburg County. The IRS placed liens against Respondent personally in 

Greenville County. Respondent entered into an agreement to pay the IRS what 

was determined to be his personal share of the firm's payroll tax liability. 

Respondent made all of the payroll tax payments for which he was deemed 

personally responsible, and the Greenville County liens in his name were satisfied 

in 2014. When Respondent left the partnership, his law partner agreed to assume 

responsibility for the remaining liens in Spartanburg County that were filed against 

the firm's assets. 

Respondent explained that he trusted his law partner and believed his law partner 

was handling the trust account and the payroll taxes but admitted he shared the 

responsibility and should have taken a more active role in the firm's financial 

affairs. Respondent expressed deep remorse for not being more involved in the 

operation of the firm as a partner. Respondent admits his failure to ensure payroll 

taxes were being remitted to the IRS and SCDOR violated Rule 8.4, RPC, Rule 

407, SCACR (prohibiting misconduct involving a pattern of indifference to legal 

obligation). 
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 confidential 

admonition or a public reprimand, agrees to pay costs, and agrees to complete the 

Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and Trust Account School within 

one year. 

III. 

We find Respondent's misconduct warrants a public reprimand. Accordingly, we 

accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand Respondent for his misconduct. 

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. Within one year of the date of this opinion, 

Respondent shall complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School 

and Trust Account School. 

PUBLIC REPRIMAND. 

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