THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Christopher Lance Sheek, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2021-000921 

Opinion No. 28060 

Submitted September 9, 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. 

J. Steedley Bogan, of Columbia, for Respondent. 

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, consents to 

the imposition of a public reprimand or a definite suspension not to exceed one 

year, and agrees to pay costs. We accept the Agreement and suspend Respondent 

from the practice of law in this state for one year. The facts, as set forth in the 

Agreement, are as follows. 

I. 

The disciplinary complaint in this matter arose following Respondent's conduct in 

two cases before the South Carolina Court of Appeals that demonstrated a lack of 

competence to handle appellate cases, a consistent failure to adhere to the SCACR, 

and repeated failure to comply with the court of appeals' orders and directives from 

the Clerk of the court of appeals. 
In the first matter, the Clerk notified Respondent on October 1, 2010, that his brief 

was not in compliance with Rule 267, SCACR, and that he had ten days to cure the 

deficiency. Respondent failed to respond and did not cure the deficiency. The 

Clerk wrote Respondent again on October 20, 2010, and gave him an additional ten 

days. Respondent failed to respond to that letter or cure the deficiency. 

On November 19, 2010, the Clerk wrote Respondent informing him of a deficiency 

in the supplemental record on appeal, and that he had seven days in which to cure 

the deficiency. Again, Respondent failed to respond or cure the deficiency. On 

November 24, 2010, opposing counsel filed a Motion to Require Appellant to 

Serve and File a Complete Record on Appeal, in which opposing counsel cited 

numerous failures by Respondent to include designated documents in the record 

and to properly number the pages of the record. The court of appeals granted that 

motion on January 19, 2011. 

On February 16, 2011, having received no response from Respondent to any of its 

letters or the court's order, the Clerk wrote Respondent once again. In addition to 

requesting compliance with the previous letters and order within seven days, the 

Clerk notified Respondent that he had not yet filed a certificate of counsel for the 

record or supplemental record. The Clerk requested that those certificates be filed 

within seven days. On February 25, 2011, after receiving no response from 

Respondent, the Clerk gave Respondent an additional seven days to comply. 

The Clerk dismissed the appeal on March 18, 2011. On April 5, 2011, the court 

received Respondent's Motion to Reinstate Appeal. On April 29, 2011, the court 

entered an order stating that it would consider the motion to reinstate if Respondent 

complied with the prior order and the directives of the Clerk within seven days. 

On May 13, 2011, the court reinstated the appeal. The same day, the Clerk wrote to 

Respondent to request certificates of counsel, which the Clerk originally requested 

on February 16, 2011. On June 8, 2011, the Clerk wrote to Respondent and cited 

other deficiencies Respondent failed to correct. The Clerk gave Respondent ten 

days to cure all these deficiencies. Also, on June 8, 2011, the Clerk received a 

letter from opposing counsel explaining that Respondent had not served the second 

supplemental record on appeal and that opposing counsel could not file his final 

brief until Respondent did so. 

On June 20, 2011, the court of appeals received a request by Respondent for an 

extension of time to comply with the pending deadlines. The court of appeals 

granted the extension until August 3, 2011. On June 30, 2011, opposing counsel 
again filed a motion to require Respondent to comply with the court of appeals' 

orders and directives to serve an entire record on appeal. On August 24, 2011, 

opposing counsel filed a motion to dismiss. 

Having heard nothing from Respondent since his request for an extension on June 

20, 2011, the court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss on October 11, 2011. 

On October 27, 2011, Respondent filed a motion to reconsider. The court of 

appeals entered an order on December 7, 2011, giving Respondent fifteen days to 

comply with its orders and directives and stating the court of appeals would 

consider the motion to reinstate if Respondent complied with those orders. On 

January 11, 2013, after finally receiving notification that Respondent had complied 

with the court of appeals' orders and directives, the appeal was reinstated for a 

second time. In addition, on January 11, 2013, the Clerk sent Respondent letters 

regarding several simple deficiencies that still existed in his filings. Ultimately, 

after no response from Respondent and a failure to cure the noted deficiencies, the 

court dismissed the appeal by order dated February 20, 2013. 

In the second appellate matter, opposing counsel filed a motion to dismiss due to 

Respondent's failure to timely serve an initial brief and designation of matter to be 

included in the record on appeal. Opposing counsel also noted that Respondent 

filed the brief prior to ordering the transcript. Respondent filed a return, in which 

he admitted he had not ordered the transcript at the time the brief was filed but 

claimed he had mistakenly ordered the transcript from the wrong court reporter and 

had corrected his error and ordered the transcript from the correct court reporter. 

Opposing counsel filed a reply with exhibits indicating that Respondent made 

misrepresentations to the court of appeals regarding the true status of the transcript 

and appeal. Specifically, opposing counsel attached correspondence from the court 

reporter showing Respondent had been in contact with the correct court reporter 

since December 2011 and did not order the transcript until August 16, 2012, after 

he filed his return to the motion to dismiss. Respondent represented the incorrect 

information in his return was a result of incorrect information provided to him by 

his staff. Respondent acknowledged that it was his responsibility to ensure that 

correct information was provided to the court of appeals. 

By order filed September 28, 2012, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal. The 

court cited Respondent's failure to order the transcript until eight months had 

passed from the filing of the notice of appeal, Respondent's misrepresentations 

regarding the ordering of the transcript, Respondent's failure to serve the opposing 
party with the initial brief, and Respondent's filing of the initial brief without 

ordering the transcript. 

Respondent admits his conduct violated the following Rules of Professional 

Conduct in Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (requiring competence); Rule 3.2 

(expediting litigation); Rule 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying rules of a tribunal); Rule 

4.1(a) (prohibiting a false statement of material fact to a tribunal); Rule 5.1(a) 

(supervising lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure his law firm complies 

with the Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 5.3 (establishing responsibilities 

regarding non-lawyer assistants); and 8.4(e) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the 

administration of justice). 

II. 

Respondent admits his conduct constitutes grounds for discipline under the 

following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 

7(a)(1) (prohibiting a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct) and Rule 

7(a)(5) (prohibiting conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice). 

Respondent also agrees to pay the costs incurred by ODC and the Commission on 

Lawyer Conduct (Commission) in investigating and prosecuting this matter within 

thirty days of the imposition of discipline. 

In terms of the appropriate sanction, we note Respondent's disciplinary history 

includes a prior instance of mishandling an appeal and untruthfulness in statements 

to others. See In re Sheek, 399 S.C. 351, 731 S.E.2d 873 (2012) (publicly 

reprimanding Respondent for, among other things, a failure to timely file a record 

on appeal which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal). Respondent also received 

a Letter of Caution in May 2005 citing the following Rules of Professional 

Conduct: Rule 1.1 (requiring competence); Rule 4.1 (requiring truthfulness in 

statements to others); Rule 4.4 (requiring respect for rights of third persons); Rule 

8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty); and Rule 8.4(e) (prohibiting 

conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). See Rule 2(s), RLDE, Rule 

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

disciplinary proceeding against the lawyer if the caution or warning contained 

therein is relevant to the misconduct alleged in the proceedings). 

III. 

We accept the Agreement and suspend Respondent from the practice of law for 

one year. 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, 

RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Within thirty days of the date of this opinion, 

Respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this 

matter by ODC and the Commission. 

DEFINITE SUSPENSION. 

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

not participating.