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

In the Matter of John Wesle y Locklair, III, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001754

Opinion No. 27686 Submitted November 18, 2016 – Filed December 7, 2016

DISBARRED

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

John Wesley Locklair, II, of Columbia, pro 

### se

.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Offic e 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

disbarment with conditions as set forth later in this opinion. He requests that disbarment be imposed retroactiv ely to March 6, 2015, the date of his interim suspension. In the Matter of Locklair , 411 S.C. 627, 769 S. E.2d 675 (2015). We accept the Agreement and disbar respondent from the practice of law in this state retroactively to the date of his interim suspension. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

Matter I

On May 20, 2013, respondent was a ppointed to represent Client A who had been charged with first degree burgl ary in May 2011. A jury trial w as held in October 2013 and Client A was found guilty a nd sentenced to life withou t parole pursuant

to the "three strikes" law.On November 8, 2013, respondent f ield a Notice of Intent to Appeal in the South Carolina Court of Appeals. On N ovember 13, 2013, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals notified respondent that his Notice of Appeal was defic ient because the sentencing sheet was not attached and the lower court case numb er was incorrect. The Clerk gave respondent ten day s to correct the errors. Resp ondent did not respond to the Clerk's letter.

On March 6, 2014, the Chief Judge o f the Court of Appeals issue d an order directing respondent to correct t he errors in the Notice of App eal within ten days or appear before the Co urt of Appeals on March 20, 2014, to explai n why he had not complied. Fourteen days late r, respondent submitted an Amended Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals.

On July 11, 2014, the Chief Appellate Defender of the Division of Appellate Defense wrote respondent to no tify him that his office would ta ke over representation of Client A if re spondent desired. The Chief Ap pellate Defender requested respondent either send hi m a copy of the order of app ointment or notice that he planned to continue to pursue the appeal on behalf of C lient A.

On July 20, 2014, Client A filed a complaint with ODC complaini ng that he did not know the status of his appeal and his attempts to communica te with respondent had gone unanswered. Respondent did not timely respond to the Notice of Investigation sent by ODC on A ugust 4, 2014, or to the reminder letter sent on August 28, 2014. On September 30, 2014, ODC sent a subpoena to respondent requiring him to appear for an on- the-record interview on Octob er 23, 2014, and to provide a copy of Client A's entire file.

On October 7, 2014, respondent fax ed a letter to ODC stating he knew his response

in the matter was overdue and th at he would provide a response the next day. However, respondent did not pr ovide a response until October 22 , 2014. In the response, he indicated he had twice sent an Affidavit of Indigency to Client A but

Client A failed to return it. 1 Respondent stated he woul d visit Client A at the Department of Corrections the fo llowing week to review the case with him and ensure Client A had everything he needed from respondent's file . Respondent did not file a signed verification with his response, he did not ap pear for the October

1 The Chief Appellate Defender's le tter stated respondent need on ly submit the completed Affidavit of Indigenc y on behalf of Client A if respondent had been retained. As noted above, respondent was appointed.24, 2014, interview, and he did not comply with the subpoena re quiring he provide

Client A's file.

In the meantime, on August 1, 2014, the Court of Appeals had or dered respondent to provide proof within ten days that he had ordered the trial transcript or that he had responded to the Chief Ap pellate Defender's letter. Respondent did not respond to the letter. On De cember 30, 2014, the Chief Judge o f the Court of Appeals issued an order relievi ng respondent from representing Client A in the appeal, requesting the Division of Appellate Defense screen Cli ent A's case, and directing the Clerk of Court to f orward the order to ODC. The order cited several

Rules of Professional Conduct.

On March 2, 2015, respondent emaile d ODC and stated he had been involuntarily

committed for substance abuse issues. Upon petition by ODC, th e Court issued an order placing respondent on inte rim suspension and transferring him to incapacity inactive status on March 6, 2015. Id.

Respondent was released from the rehabilitation facility on Mar ch 9, 2015. On March 12, 2015, respondent tele phoned ODC to state he would soo n be responding to its request for information.

On April 17, 2015, ODC issued a s ubpoena to respondent for fina ncial records. To date, respondent has not compl ied with this subpoena.

On September 25, 2015, respondent voluntarily submitted to an o n-the-record interview with ODC. During the interview, respondent indicated he did not respond to the Chief Appellate Def ender's letter because, at th e time, he had a

serious cocaine addiction and wa s suffering from severe depress ion and bi-polar disorder. Respondent stated he was diagnosed with these proble ms during his rehabilitation stay in March 2015. He admitted he had had a serious drug problem for several years. 2

Respondent admits that, by his c onduct in connection with his representation of Client A, he violated the followi ng provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1. 3 (lawyer shall act with reas onableness and diligence in representing a client ); Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall kee p client reasonably

informed about status of matter and promptly comply with r easonable requests for

2 According to the Agreement, re spondent is not currently in any treatment or counseling program.information); Rule 3.2 (lawyer shall make efforts to expedite litigation consistent with interests of client); and Rule 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial t o administration of justice).

Matter II

Respondent represented Client B in an automobile accident case. Client B sought treatment from Dr. Rodney Arno ld, a chiropractor. On January 2 3, 2013, respondent sent Dr. Arnold a lette r of protection stating he wo uld make direct payment to Dr. Arnold from the proceeds received from settlemen t.

On August 6, 2014, Client B told Dr. Arnold that his case had s ettled eight months earlier and he thought his medical bills had been paid by respo ndent. After several unsuccessful attempts were made to contact respondent, Dr. Arno ld filed a complaint with ODC on August 29, 2014.

Respondent did not timely respond to the Notice of Investigatio n sent by ODC on September 3, 2014. On September 30, 2014, ODC sent a subpoena to respondent requiring him to appear for an on- the-record interview on Octob er 23, 2014, and to provide a copy of the client file. On October 7, 2014, respond ent faxed a letter to ODC stating he knew his response was overdue and that he would provide a response the next day. Respondent did not provide a response u ntil October 22, 2014, but failed to include a sig ned verification. He did not appear for the

scheduled interview. On Decembe r 9, 2014, respondent faxed Cli ent B's file to

ODC.

In his response, Respondent adm itted he failed to protect Dr. A rnold's interests.

He stated the settlement funds wen t directly to his client and not through his trust account. Respondent requested sixty days in which to reimburse Dr. Arnold.

At an interview in September 2015, respondent admitted miscondu ct in this matter. With regard to the settlement funds, respondent clarified that he deposited the money from the settlement into hi s trust account then used the funds to buy cocaine. He explained he had anot her case that he believed would settle for a significant amount of money and he intended to reimburse the Cl ient B ledger when that happened. Respondent s tated that Client B received t he proceeds from the settlement, but that he f ailed to pay Dr. Arnold.

Respondent admits that, by his c onduct in connection with his representation of Client B, he violated the following provisions of the Rules of ProfessionalConduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1. 3 (lawyer shall act with reas onableness and diligence in representing a clie nt); Rule 1.15 (lawyer shall ho ld property of third person that is in lawyer's posse ssion in connection with a representation separate from lawyer's own property; lawye r shall promptly deliver to th ird person any funds third person entitled to recei ve); Rule 4.4 (in represent ing client, lawyer shall

not use means that have no subs tantial purpose other than to bu rden third person); and Rule 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to en gage in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).

Matter III

Respondent represented Client C in a breach of contract action against a defendant. On April 18, 2013, the s pecial referee signe d an order granting judgment in favor of Client C for $17,500 plus costs and attorney's fees. The order was filed in the Horry County Clerk of Court's Office on May 14, 2013.

On February 4, 2014, respondent ca lled Client C's president to relay an offer from the defendant to settle the judgm ent for $15,000 to be paid wit hin three weeks. The president agreed to the offer.

On February 14, 2014, a Satisf action of Judgment signed by respondent was filed in Horry County. The satisfacti on indicated the judgment had b een paid. Client C's president was not informed of the filing of the Satisfactio n of Judgment and he

did not receive the settlement funds.

Several times during March of 2014, Client C 's president called and emailed respondent asking if the defenda nt had paid the settlement. On March 19, 2014, respondent told the president he would have the money by the fo llowing week.

In May 2014 and for the next six months, Client C's president a ttempted to reach respondent to inquire about the p ayment. Respondent refused to communicate with Client C's president.

In February 2015, Client C hired a nother attorney ("New Attorney") to assist with the collection of the judgment fr om the defendant. New Attorne y discovered that the judgment was marked satisfied and had been signed by respon dent. On February 12, 2015, New Attorney left a voicemail for respondent inquiring about the judgment. New Attorney also contacted the defendant's atto rney to find out what he knew about the judgment.Respondent did not return New Atto rney's telephone call, but se nt an email to Client C's president on Februa ry 13, 2015. He apologized for t he delay and stated

he now had the matter resolved a nd would get the money to him w ithin ten to fourteen days.

On February 16, 2015, the defenda nt's attorney informed New Att orney that the defendant had paid the judgment in February 2014. The defendan t's attorney forwarded a copy of the cashier's check to New Attorney. The c opy showed the check was issued by a bank on February 7, 2014, on behalf of th e defendant to "[respondent] attorney for [Clie nt C]." The defendant's attorn ey also told New Attorney that respondent had per sonally picked up the check and signed for it on February 14, 2014.

New Attorney informed Client C's president. Client C's preside nt was shocked to learn that respondent had receive d payment of $15,000 and that the judgment had been satisfied. Respondent did not remit payment to Client C. On February 20, 2015, New Attorney filed a complaint with ODC.

Respondent did not respond to the Notice of Investigation, Noti ce to Appear, and Subpoena for Client's C's file a nd trust account records sent b y ODC on February 20, 2015. At the September 25, 2015, interview, respondent adm itted the conduct

described above and stated he re tained the money in his trust a ccount and, over time, removed the funds to purchase drugs. He further admitted he signed the Satisfaction of Judgment and mi sappropriated the settlement fun ds.

Respondent admits that, by his c onduct in connection with his representation of Client C, he violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall keep client reasonably informed about status of matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); Rule 1.15 (lawye r shall hold property of client i n lawyer's possession in connection with a representati on separate from lawyer's own property; upon receiving funds which client has a n interest, lawyer shall prom ptly notify client and shall promptly deliver to client any funds client entitled to r eceive); Rule 3.3 (lawyer shall not knowingly make f alse statement of fact to tri bunal); Rule 8.4(b) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to commit criminal ac t that reflects adversely on lawyer's honesty, t rustworthiness or fitness as la wyer in other respects); Rule 8.4(c) (it is p rofessional misconduct for lawye r to commit criminal act involving moral turpitude); R ule 8.4(d) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation); and Rule 8.4 (e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial t o administration of justice).

Matter IV

On December 1, 2014, Client D ret ained respondent to represent her on a DUI charge. Client D made three payments of $200 each to responden t. When respondent was suspended on March 6, 2015, he had not completed any work for Client D; he did not refund any money to her.

Respondent did not respond to the Notice of Investigation dated August 6, 2015, or to a reminder letter from ODC sent on August 31, 2015. During the September 25, 2015, interview, respondent stated he started work on Client D' s file but was suspended and did not contact Client D.

Respondent admits that, by his c onduct in connection with his representation of Client D, he violated the followi ng provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1. 3 (lawyer shall act with reas onableness and diligence in representing a clie nt); Rule 1.16 (upon termination of representation, lawyer shall refund fee that has not been earned); and Rule 8.4 (e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to admin istration of justice)

Matter V

Client E retained respondent for representation on drug charges stemming from his arrest on December 19, 2014. On January 3, 2015, the mother of Client E's children paid respondent $1,000 for the representation. She ma de two more payments of $500 each, one on January 20, 2015, and the second on February 6, 2015, for a total of $2,000.

Respondent visited Client E in the detention center on one occa sion. He did not file any discovery motions and did not conduct an investigation on Client E's behalf. Respondent did not file a notice of appearance on beha lf of Client E.

When he was initially booked into the detention center, Client E filed an Affidavit of Indigency. On February 17, 2015, a local contract public de fender was appointed to represent Client E . The public defender filed discovery motions the same day.Client E did not tell the public d efender that he had hired and paid respondent. The public defender did not know another attorney represented respo ndent. She had no communication with respondent. The public defender negotiated a favorable plea deal for Client E and he p led guilty on August 14, 2015.

Client E filed a complaint with ODC on December 14, 2015, alleging respondent

did not do the work he was hired to do and did not earn the fee paid to him. Respondent did not respond to the Notice of Investigation sent on December 23,

2015.

Respondent admits that, by his c onduct in connection with his representation of Client E, he violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1. 3 (lawyer shall act with reas onableness and diligence in representing a client ); Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall kee p client reasonably

informed about status of matter and promptly comply with r easonable requests for information); Rule 3.2 (lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation

consistent with interests of clie nt); and Rule 8.4(e) (it is pr ofessional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to administration o f justice)

Respondent further agrees that, i n connection with all of the m atters discussed above, his communication and c ooperation with ODC has been spor adic since the first disciplinary matter was opened in July 2014. Respondent admits his failure to cooperate violates the following provision of the Rules of Prof essional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 8.1(b) (in connection with disciplinary matter, lawyer shall not knowingly fail to res pond to lawful demand for inform ation from disciplinary authority).

Additional Matters

During his September 25, 2015, i nterview, respondent admitted t o three additional

matters of misconduct that were not the subject of disciplinary complaints. It is

believed that the three clients discussed below are unaware of respondent's handling of their settlement proceeds.

Respondent represented Client F in an automobile accident case. Respondent agreed to pay the physical therapist's bill from the settlement proceeds. The case settled and respondent disbursed C lient F's portion of the proc eeds to Client F but failed to pay Indigo Therapy Specialists for Client F's treatme nt. The bill totals
$ 3,133.92

.Respondent admits he used the mone y from Client F's settlement proceeds to purchase drugs. He further admits he did not maintain an adequate client file and did not maintain financial records as required by Rule 417, SCA CR.

Respondent represented Client G in an automobile accident case. Client G received a litigation loan from C overed Bridge Capital, LLC, as an advance on her proceeds. Respondent admitted he was obligated to reimburse th e loan from the settlement proceeds, but he did not reimburse the loan company as he used the money to purchase drugs.

Respondent also admits he failed to maintain an adequate file, thus, no

disbursement sheet is available and the details of the loan are unknown. In addition, respondent failed to mai ntain trust account records i n this matter as required by Rule 417, SCACR.

Respondent represented Client H in an automobile accident case. After the case settled, Client H received her p roceeds and respondent maintained $5,000 in his trust account to negotiate and pa y Client H's medical bills. R espondent used the money to buy drugs and did not pay the medical bills. Further, respondent failed to

maintain trust account records fo r this matter as required by R ule 417, SCACR.

Client H's file, provided to ODC by the Receiver, contains a li st of medical providers and amounts owed. Respondent failed to pay providers a total of
$ 4,605.49

.

Respondent admits that, by his c onduct in connection with the r epresentation of Client F, Client G, and Client H, h e violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1. 3 (lawyer shall act with reas onableness and diligence in representing client); Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall keep client reasonably informed about status of matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); Rule 1.15 (lawyer shall hold property of third pe rsons in lawyer's possession in connection with a rep resentation separate from la wyer's own property; upon receiving funds whic h third person has an intere st, lawyer shall promptly notify third person and promptly deliver to third pers on any funds third person entitled to receive); Rul e 4.4 (in representing client, lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial pur pose other than to burden thi rd person); Rule 8.4(b) (it is professional mis conduct for lawyer to commit crim inal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness a s a lawyer in other respects); Rule 8.4(d) (it is p rofessional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fra ud, deceit or misrepresentatio n); and Rule 8.4(e)(it is professional misconduct for lawyer to e ngage in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice). In addition, respondent admits he v iolated the recordkeeping provisions of Rule 417, SCACR.

Finally, in addition to his admitte d violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically referenced in eac h matter discussed above, respond ent agrees that his misconduct constitutes grounds for d iscipline pursuant to the f ollowing provisions of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCA CR: Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to violat e Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 7(a)(3) (it shall be ground for discipline for l awyer to knowingly fail to respond to lawyer demand from disciplinary counsel); Ru le 7(a)(5) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawy er to engage in conduct tendin g to pollute administration of justice or to bring courts or legal professio ns into disrepute and demonstrating unfitness to prac tice law); Rule 7(a)(6) (it shal l be ground for discipline for lawyer to violat e Oath of Office taken upon admi ssion to practice law in South Carolina); and Rule 7(a)(7) (it sha ll be ground fo r discipline for lawyer to willfully viola te valid court order).

Conclusion

We accept the Agreement for Disc ipline by Consent and disbar re spondent from the practice of law in this state, retroactively to March 6, 20 15, the date of his

interim suspension. Id. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall enter into a pay ment plan with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) to pay t he costs incurred in the inves tigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission. Further, within thirty (30) days of the date of this opini on, respondent shall enter into apayment plan to pay

restitution as follows:

1. $2,736.00 to Dr. Rodney Arnold;

2. $15,000.00 to the Presi dent of Client C;

3. $600.00 to Client D;

4. $2,000 to the individual who paid fees on behalf of Client E;

5. $3,133.92 to Indigo T herapy Specialists;

6. $2,519.59 to Covered Bridge Capital, LLC;7. a total of $4,605.49 to medical p roviders on behalf of Client H as specified in Exhibit 1 to t he Addendum to Agreement; and

8. respondent shall fully reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client P rotection for any and all amounts paid on his behalf.

Within fifteen (15) days of the date of this opinion, responden t shall file an

affidavit with the Clerk of Cour t showing that he has complied with Rule 30 of Rule 413, SCACR, and shall also surrender his Certificate of Ad mission to the

Practice of Law to the Clerk of Court.

DISBARRED.

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

, J., not participating.