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

In the Matter of Mark Andrew Brunty, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2014-001840

Opinion No. 27503 Heard January 13, 2015 – F iled February 25, 2015

DISBARRED

Lesley M. Coggiola, Discip linary Counsel, and Sabrina C. Todd, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Mark Andrew Brunty, of Edgefield, Pro se Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Respondent failed to answer or appear in this attorney disciplinary matter and was held in default. 1 Following a hearing, the Panel recommended respondent be disbarred. We agree, disbar respondent, and order him to pay the costs of th is disciplinary proceeding, 2 to make restitution to the clients identified in the attached appendi x, to repay the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection for any payments made on respondent's beha lf, and to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program, Et hics School, Trust Account School, and Advertising School prior to seeking readmission to the South Carolina Bar.

1 Respondent is presently serving a forty-si x month federal sentence following his plea to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. In addition to his active sentence, respondent was ordered to pay $1,575,600 in restitution and placed on three years supervised release following his incarceration.

2 $ 1,891.32

.PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Formal Charges were personally served on respondent on March 24, 2014. When he failed to answer, the Panel entered an order of default. By virtue of his default, respondent is deemed to have admitted the factual allegations made in the Formal Charges. Rule 24(a), Rule s of Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE), Rule 413, SCACR. The Panel sent a copy of the order of default and an order to appear by certified mail and by first class mail to respondent at three addresses. The certified mail to all three a ddresses was returned, as we re two of the three first class mailings. The Panel held a hear ing on the Formal Charges on August 15, 2014. Respondent did not appear at that hearing. The Panel issued a report reciting the admitted facts, finding responde nt violated seven subsections of Rule 7(a), RLDE, Rule 413, and that aggrava ting circumstances existed. The Panel recommended that respondent be disbarre d with conditions. Neither the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) nor respondent ha s filed exceptions to this report.

Since respondent is in default, the sole que stion before the Court is the appropriate sanction. In re Berger , 408 S.C. 313, 759 S.E.2d 716 (2014). In determining the appropriate sanction, we take into consideration both respondent's failure to answer the Formal Charges, and his failure to a ppear at the August 2014 Panel hearing. In re Hall , 333 S.C. 247, 509 S.E.2d 266 (1998).

FACTS/FINDINGS

The factual allegations, admitted by re spondent, and the accompanying rules violations found by the Panel, are as follows:

A. Matter 11-DE-L-380

Respondent represented a husband and wife in several legal matt ers related to the couple's business. During the course of representation, respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with the wife, in violation of the then current version of Rule 1.7(b), Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), Rule 407, SCACR. Further, during the investigation of this matter, respondent testified under oath that he had not had sexual relations with any othe r client, client's spouse, or client's employee. This testimony was false as respond ent was then engaged in a sexual relationship with the client who is the complainant in Matter 12-DE-L-1459, Item C infra

.Respondent's conduct in this matter violat ed Rules 1.7(b), 8.1(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407.

B. Matter 12-DE-L-0346

Respondent represented the client property owner's association in a construction defect suit. Without the association's knowledge, respondent used a forged agreement to sell a portion of the associati on's interest in the suit to Incline Energy, LLC (IE) in exchange for $100,000 to fund the litigation. Respondent executed a separate document agreeing to hold the $100,000 in his trust account and to disburse it only for litigation purposes. In fact, he had the funds wired to his operating account and used it for his own purposes.

IE notified two attorneys involved in th e construction defect litigation of the agreement, and respondent repaid IE in two transactions. When questioned by ODC, respondent made numerous misrepresent ations, including that he repaid IE from his personal investment accounts. Respondent presented altered documents from a closed investment account to ODC to support his claim. In fact, the money came from two clients who were ultimately repaid with funds respondent misappropriated from others. ODC subpoen aed respondent's trust account records, and in response respondent provided some photocopied bank statements from Conway National Bank (CNB) and a few incomprehensible ledgers. He failed to inform ODC of accounts at South Carolina Bank & Trust (SCB&T).

ODC compared statements obt ained from CNB with those provided by respondent. Among other issues, the examination revealed altered pages, me mo lines, and wire amounts; that overdraft fees had been obscured; that NSF items had not been reported to ODC; and that non-client payees and persona l expenses had been paid both by checks and debits out of this tr ust account. While respondent attended one interview with ODC, he ceased coopera ting after the altered bank records were discovered.

Respondent's conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.15, 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and Rule 8.4(e) , RPC, and Rule 417, SCACR.

C. Matter 12-DE-L-1459

Complainant hired respondent to bring a mo rtgage fraud suit against a lender, and paid him $15,000 towards his $25,000 fee. They subsequently developed a sexualrelationship, and respondent told the compla inant she need not pay the fee balance. Respondent failed to pursue the fraud case in any meaningful way.

Complainant also gave respondent $22,000, and he agreed to manage an inactive business for her. Approximately $5, 000 was used for legitimate business expenses, but respondent ha s refused to either return the remaining funds or provide complainant with an accounting.

Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8(m), 1.15, 1.16, 7.1, 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, in his handling of this matter.

D. Matter 12-DE-L-1470

Respondent, or someone acting on his behalf , contacted complainant and informed him his mortgage lender had violated several regulations and therefore complainant's mortgage could be ad justed. This telephone call was an impermissible direct solicitation. Follo wing an in-person meeting, respondent accepted $5,000 to represent complainan t in seeking a mortgage reduction, promising a full refund if he were unsuc cessful and a half refund if he were successful.

Respondent did not pursue relief on behalf of complainant, but falsely represented the situation when complainant sought u pdates. Following respondent's interim suspension, complainant contacted res pondent who assured him his case was progressing well, and that a nother attorney would comple te the case. Complainant asked for a refund, but has received no further communication from respondent. Respondent did not cooperate w ith ODC in this matter.

Respondent's conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 3.2, 7.3(a), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d), RPC, Rule 407.

E. Matter 12-DE-L-1492

Respondent impermissibly solicited mortga ge-related business from complainant's daughter. When complainant contacted respondent, complainant was told he would receive title to his property and a refund of all his mortgage payments. Complainant paid respondent $5,000. Respondent performed no work on complainant's behalf, but misrepresented that the case was "about finished."Respondent was suspended shortly thereafte r, and did not co operate in ODC's investigation.

Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1. 16(d), 3.2, 7.1, 7.3, 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 40 7, in this matter.

F. Matter 12-DE-L-1602

Respondent agreed to negotiate two condom inium short sales for complainant. Respondent asked for and received $20,000 to use in negotiating with one of the lenders, but did not safeguard that money, and did not re turn it to complainant who was dissatisfied with the lack of progress. Both condominiums are subject to foreclosure actions and complainant faces deficiency payments. Respondent did not cooperate with ODC in this investigation.

Respondent violated Rule 1.3, 1.15, 1.16, 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, in this matter.

G. Matter 12-DE-L-1644

Complainant and her husband hired respondent to deed back two timeshares. Respondent negotiated the couple's checks, but did not deliver or record the new timeshare deeds. As a result of res pondent's inaction, complainant and her husband incurred additional timeshare f ees. Respondent avoided complainant except for one phone call where he agreed to discuss a possible meeting, a meeting that never took place. Respondent did not c ooperate with ODC in the investigation of this matter.

By his conduct here, respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1. 6, 5.5, 8.1(b), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407.

H. Matter 13-DE-L-0006

Complainant hired respondent for $2,000 to bring suit on complainant's behalf. Respondent failed to work diligently and to communicate ade quately with the complainant. Respondent represented to complainant that the suit had been filed and induced complainant to spend thousands of dollars on the nonexistent litigation. Upon his suspension, respondent did not return the unearned fees to complainant, and did not surrender compla inant's file to complainant or to theindividual appointed as the Attorney to Protect Client's Interests (ATP). Respondent did not cooperate in ODC's investigation.

Complainant filed a fee dispute and wa s awarded $2,000 by the Resolution of Fee Disputes Board. Respondent did not pay this award.

Respondent's conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407 and the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 402(k)(3), SCACR.

I. Matter 13-DE-L-0007

Complainants hired respondent to assist in the sale of their business to investors. In connection with the sale, respondent was entrusted with $210,000 from the investors to be used to pay the business' s debts and federal ta x liability of $25,000.

Respondent disbursed funds to settle the de bts and assured complainants that the remaining funds were sufficient to satisfy the tax liability. Co mplainant received a number of IRS notices, and was told by re spondent that he was working with the IRS. He eventually told complainants the federal tax liability could be settled for $15,000. In fact, respondent never made any effort to settle or pay the tax debt, and by the time respondent was placed on interim suspension, the tax liability had increased to $ 40,854.18 . Respondent had no funds in trust for complainants, and did not cooperate with ODC's investigation.

By his conduct in this matter, respondent vi olated Rules 1.3, 1.15, 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407 and the Atto rneys Oath, Rule 402(k)(3), SCACR.

J. Matter 13-DE-L-0061

Complainant hired respondent to assist in litigation, and eventually instructed respondent to accept a settlement offer whic h would result in complainant's receipt of almost $54,000. Respondent rejected th e offer, and did not inform complainant that his case was going to trial. At that trial, respondent represented that complainant chose not to be present. He presented no evidence and did not challenge the opposing party's evidence. Although the record was held open to allow respondent to brief a le gal issue, no brief was ever submitted. Complainant's claim was unsuccessful.Following respondent's interim suspension, complainant hired a different attorney to pursue the settlement offer. This atto rney discovered that respondent had taken the claim to trial and lost. As a result, complainant received nothing. Respondent did not cooperate in the inve stigation of this matter.

Respondent's conduct in this matter violated Ru les 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407.

K. Matter 13-DE-L-0075

Respondent and a business partner convinced complainants to invest in a scheme to purchase distressed promissory notes and real property which would be sold quickly for a significant property. The co mplainants were to receive 80% of the profits from each transaction while responde nt and the associate were to receive 20%. After what they believed to be a successful first transaction, the complainants were persuaded to inve st $600,000 for a distressed note that respondent represented could be resold qui ckly for a $150,000 profit, and to invest $100,000 to purchase two real estate parcels. Respondent presented forged, fabricated documents to complainants to demonstrate his authority to make these purchases, and complainants sent res pondent $700,000 in four transactions. Respondent misappropriated the funds.

Following respondent's interim suspension , respondent showed the complainants fraudulent bank records purporting to show that $600,000 was held in an account. The complainants sued respondent, his bus iness associate, and a corporate entity, and respondent was held in default. He did not cooperate with ODC in this matter.

Respondent was indicted by the federal gove rnment on four counts of mail fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, for his conduct in this matter. Respondent subsequently pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Respondent's conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.8, 1.15, 1.16, 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407.

L. Matter 13-DE-L-0080

Complainant, a Florida attorney, introdu ced respondent to th e complainants in Matter 13-DE-L-0075, Item K supra . Complainant decided to invest with respondent, and obtained the promised re turn on his first investment withrespondent. He later wire d respondent $50,000 for a second investment. The second investment never took place, and respondent did not safeguard complainant's money. Further, re spondent did not cooperate in ODC's investigation.

In this matter, respondent's conduct violat ed Rules 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407.

M. Matter 13-DE-L-0096

Respondent's representation of client ove r the span of two years was neither competent nor diligent, and the lack of diligence caused client financial harm. Respondent also misled client, and followi ng respondent's suspension, two forged promissory notes were found in client's file, one representing client's alleged $50,000 debt to respondent and the other his alleged $50,000 debt to a third person. Respondent failed to cooperate with ODC's investigation.

By his conduct in this matter, respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), a nd 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407.

N. Matter 13-DE-L-0326

Claimant was employed by respondent. Af ter he left respondent's employ, his notary signature was forged on litigation loan documents by which a client was lent $10,000. The client, whose signature was also forged, was unaware of the loan and received none of the proceeds, but ultimately paid the loan company $13,000 to avoid costly litigation. Respondent did not cooperate in the investigation of this matter.

By his conduct in this matter, respondent violated Rules 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407.O. Matter 13-DE-L-0817

Client lent respondent $500,000 as a real es tate investment in exchange for certain benefits. After the loan was made, client learned th at respondent had presented him with forged and fabricated docum ents, and that respondent lacked the authority to fulfill certain of the promised benefits. Responden t repaid client only $90,000, and misrepresented the source of those funds. Respondent did not cooperate in ODC's investigation.

Respondent's conduct in this matter violated Rules 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407.

P. Matter 13-DE-L-1046

Respondent retained an unearned $500 paymen t. He did not c ooperate in this investigation.

Respondent violated Rules 1.16(d) and 8.1(b), RPC, Rule 407, in this matter.

Q. Out-of-State Loan Modification Matters

Respondent employed marketing companies to solicit out-of-state clients interested in home loan modifications or forecl osure avoidance. Respondent, who was licensed only in South Carolina, failed to oversee the actions of these marketing companies, and employed a third party to process the loan modifications. Upon respondent's interim suspension, this thir d party began working with a different South Carolina law firm. Neither responden t nor this third party notified the loan modification clients of respondent's suspen sion, did not seek their consent to work with the new firm, and shared confidential client information with that firm. Eventually the third party mailed a cryptic unsigned letter to respondent's out-of

state clients notifying them of respondent 's suspension and giving them the ATP's contact information. The third party surre ndered many, but not a ll, of respondent's loan modification client files to the AT P. Respondent did no t cooperate in the investigation of these matters.

Respondent's conduct constituted the unauthori zed practice of law in many of these foreign jurisdictions. This is a violation of Rule 5.5, RPC, Rule 407.The applicable rules of professional conduc t are those of the jurisdictions where the clients and homes are located. Rule 8. 5, RPC, Rule 407. For this reason, the individual client matters are grouped by jurisdiction.

1. Arkansas, Matter 13-DE-L-0337

A couple paid respondent $2,900 to a ssist in obtaining a modification of their already modified home loan. They did not receive adequate communications and could not obtain a status update.

Respondent's conduct in this matter viol ated the following Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), and 8.1(b).

2. California, Matters 13-DE-L -1201, 13-DE-L-0135, 13-DE-L-0210, and 13-DE-L-0050

Client A paid $2,900 upfront for help with a loan modification matter. Client B paid $2,800 despite being eligible for free services and was eventually told to send the lender her documents directly. Client Couple C paid $2,900 and were informed the foreclosure on their home had been stopped. They subsequently learned the home had been sold at foreclosure. Client Couple D paid $2,900, but received neither diligent service nor adequate communications.

Respondent's conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of law in violation of § 6125 of the California Business and Professional Code, and Rule 1-300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. By charging and collecting an upfront fee, responde nt violated California Civil Code § 2944.7. In addition, respondent's conduc t violated these California Rules of Professional Conduct: 1-400, 3-110, 3-500, 3-700, 4-100, and 4-200.

3. Colorado, Matter 13-DE-L-0162

Client was told respondent could a ssist her only if she stopped paying her mortgage and instead paid respondent $2,900. After receiving client's payment, respondent did not work dilige ntly on her behalf or do anything to assist in client's loan modification. When client called respondent's law firm directly for a status update, she received a voicemail response from respondent's employee directing her not to call his office. Followingrespondent's interim suspension, the thir d party contacted client to inform her that respondent's firm was out of business. Client lost her home in foreclosure.

Respondent's conduct in this matter violated the following Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(d), 5.3, and 8.1(b).

4. Connecticut, Matters 13-DE-L -0244, 13-DE-L-0992, and 13-DE-L

0563

Client Couple A paid respondent $2,900 to help them with their mortgage. They received confusing and conflic ting emails from three different processors who identified themselves as employees of respondent's firm. Respondent did not diligently work to obtain a modification or otherwise earn the fee collected. After respondent was placed on interim suspension, one of the three processors emailed c lients and said their file had been submitted to their lender. Later, clients were a dvised that respondent had transferred their file to another fi rm. Clients gave the successor firm permission to negotiate on their behalf, but did not receive satisfactory service. Clients later learned respondent had been suspended.

Client B paid respondent $2,900 to he lp her obtain a loan modification. Respondent did not provide Client B with diligent representation or adequate communication. The loan processors sh e thought were firm employees often provided her with conflicting informati on about the status of her matter. After respondent's interim suspension, th e loan processors continued to tell her they were working on he r file, but indicated they were with a successor law firm. When she refuse d to pay additional fees to the successor firm, any work being performed on her file ceased.

Client C hired respondent's firm to he lp her obtain a loan modification. She paid the firm $2,400 after a non-lawyer salesperson gave her legal advice and told her respondent's firm was ve ry experienced. So metimes she could not receive any response from her firm contacts, and at other times she received inconsistent and/or false inform ation. Client C did not receive any discernable service from respondent or his firm and ultimately obtained a loan modification on her own.

Respondent's conduct in these matters viol ated the following portions of theConnecticut Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.15, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(2), and 8.4(d).

5. Florida, Matter 12-DE-L-1419

Client responded to an internet a dvertisement and was contacted by a salesperson associated with respondent's firm. Client paid the firm $2,900, but did not receive the promised modi fication. Client communicated only with employees of the marketing company and the loan modification processing companies. Respondent did nothing on client's behalf.

Under Florida law, it is generally imperm issible to charge or collect a fee for foreclosure prevention services prior to completion of all of the services. Florida Statutes § 501.1377. Respondent did not fall within any exception to that general rule. Florida Statut es § 501.212; § 501.1377. Respondent's collection of an up-front fee violated Rule 4-1.5 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, and he also violated Rules 4-1.3, 4-1.4, 4-5.3, 4-7.13, and 4-8.1(b).

6. Georgia, Matter 13-DE-L-0273

Client hired respondent after a salesp erson guaranteed a loan modification and convinced client to sell his truck to pay the $2,900 fee. No progress was made on Client's file, and respondent fa iled to notify him of his suspension.

Respondent's conduct in this matter viol ated the following portions of the Georgia Rules of Professiona l Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 5.3, 1.16(d), 7.1, and 8.1(b).

7. Idaho, Matter 13-DE-L-0256

Client hired respondent to help him obt ain a loan modification and agreed to pay half of the $2,900 fee up front and the second half after his loan was modified. However, client's credit card was charged with both payments before any work was comp leted. Respondent did not provide client with adequate communication or diligent representation.

Respondent's conduct in this matter viol ated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(d), 5.3, 8.1(b), and 8.4 of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.8. Illinois, Matters 13-DE-L-0051 and 13-DE-L-0053

Client A hired respondent after a sa lesperson convinced him his home could be saved from foreclosure and his mo rtgage debt reduced. Client was specifically told the firm could practic e law in his home state of Illinois as well as Oklahoma, where his lender was located. He was instructed to stop paying his mortgage and to use that m oney to pay respondent $2,900. After several months, client reque sted a refund. By this point in time, respondent was on interim suspension. Client did not receive a refund and his file was not surrendered to the ATP.

Client Couple B paid respondent's firm $2,900 for loan modification assistance. A non-lawyer a ssociated with the firm instructed the couple not to make further mortgage payments . Respondent failed to provide competent or diligent service and failed to adequately communicate. After respondent was placed on interim suspen sion, non-lawyers associated with respondent shared clients' confiden tial information with another South Carolina law firm without the couple's consent.

Respondent's conduct in these matters viol ated Rule 5.5 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohib its lawyers from assisting another person in the unauthorized practice of law and prohibits lawyers not admitted in Illinois from holding themselves out as admitted in the jurisdiction. Respondent's conduct al so violated the following additional portions of the Illinois Rules of Profe ssional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4.

9. Kentucky, Matters 13- DE-L-0008 and 13-DE-L-0034

Client A agreed to pay responden t $2,900 after a salesperson called respondent a loan modification specia list and made unrealistic promises. Client A did not receive adequate communication and when she was updated, she was given false information about the status of her loan modification. Respondent did not prov ide her with diligent service or the level of service she had been promised . For example, client was promised the firm would have a court-ordered mediation cancelled, but when it was not cancelled, she had to attend alone . Neither respondent nor the nonlawyers associated with his firm time ly informed client of his interimsuspension. The third party charged Client A's final $725 credit card payment to a different firm without he r knowledge or cons ent. Client A attended a foreclosure hearing by hersel f. When the third party surrendered Client A's file, it contained no evidence of work performed on her behalf.

Client Couple B were pers uaded to hire respondent's firm after a salesperson promised them the attorney fee woul d be held in trust and that their mortgage payment would be reduced. They were advised to stop making payments as the firm tried to negotiate a modification. After Client Couple B paid the $2,900 attorney's fee, comm unication ceased. Respondent did not diligently work on the couple's matter and did not surrender their file upon his suspension.

Respondent's conduct in these matters viol ated the following portions of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules 3.130: -1.3 , -1.4, -1.5, -1.6, -1.16(d), -5.3,

- 7.15, -8.1, and -8.4.

10. Maine, Matter 13-DE-L-0226

Client and his wife paid respondent 's firm $3,500 to help lower their mortgage payments. They completed several packets of forms the firm provided, but none were submitted to the lienholders. They learned the firm was closed more than a month after respondent's suspension.

Respondent's conduct in this matter viol ated the following portions of the Maine Rules of Professiona l Conduct: 1.3, 1.5, 1.16( d), 5.3, and 8.1(b).

11. New Hampshire, Matter 13-DE-L-0152

Client paid respondent's firm $3,495 foll owing a high-pressure sales pitch. Client experienced difficulty reachi ng anyone and never had a consistent firm contact. He never received the services or results he was promised.

Respondent's conduct in this matter viol ated the following portions of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional C onduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 5.3, and 8.1(b).

12. New Jersey, Matter 13-DE-L-1028Client hired respondent to help him w ith a loan modification and made one payment of $967 prior to respondent 's suspension. Respondent had not earned the fee and did not issue client a refund.

Respondent's conduct in this matter viol ated the following portions of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.16(d) and 8.1(b).

13. Nevada, Matter 13-DE-L-0052

Clients paid respondent $2,900 to help them with a loan modification after a non-lawyer salesperson gave them fa lse and misleading information about respondent and his firm. Respondent di d not provide diligent representation or adequate communication.

Respondent's conduct in this matter viol ated the following portions of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1. 16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c).

14. New York, Matter 13-DE-L-0566

Client paid respondent $2,900 after a salesperson promised her specific results. Respondent did not diligen tly represent client and did not adequately communicate with her. He did not earn the fee and failed to surrender the unearned fee or client's file upon his suspension.

By collecting money to represent client in this matter, respondent engaged in the practice of law in violation of Section 484 of the New York Judiciary Law and Rule 5.5 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent's conduct also violated the following portions of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(e), 5.3, and 8.4(c).

15. North Carolina, Matter 13-DE-L-0227

Clients paid respondent $2,495 to help them obtain a loan modification.

By offering to provide loan modifi cation services in North Carolina, respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4 and Rule 5.5 of th e North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, becaus e he was not licensed to practice law in NorthCarolina and accepted an upfront fee, respondent violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-424. Respondent's conduct also violated the following portions of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 5.3, and 8.1(b).

16. Pennsylvania, Matters 13-DE -L-0182, 13-DE-L-0475, 13-DE-L

0081, and 13-DE-L-0211

Client A paid respondent $2,900 to help her obtain a lower mortgage payment. Respondent did not diligently represent her or provide her with adequate communication. After res pondent's suspension, information from her file was shared with individuals associated with another South Carolina law firm without her consent.

Client B tried to obtain a loan modification under the Making Home Affordable Modification Program, but she was ineligible. She then communicated with a salesperson associ ated with respondent, who assured her that she was eligible for the prog ram and that her lender was misleading her. After the salesperson made this claim and made other promises, client hired the firm and paid respondent $2,900. Respondent did not diligently represent client or adequately comm unicate with her. After respondent's suspension, information from her file wa s shared with individuals associated with another South Carolina law firm which solicited her business by email and phone.

Client Couple C paid respondent $3,000 to help them obtain a loan modification. After paying the fee a nd submitting the paperwork, the couple received no communication and no progress was made.

A foreclosure sale was al ready scheduled on Client D's home. He received numerous phone calls from salespeople a ssociated with respondent's firm, who falsely reported that the firm had Pennsylvania bar members on staff. Client hired respondent and paid $2,000. When Client D received the fee agreement, he noticed the terms and c onditions were different from those the salesperson described. Client requested a refund, but did not receive one.

Respondent's conduct in these matters viol ated the following portions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c).0183 17. Tennessee, Matters 13-DE-L -0297, 13-DE-L-0049, and 13-DE-LClient A paid respondent $2,200 to help him with his home loan. After receiving no services, he sought a refund but received no response.

Client B paid respondent $2,900 to help her with a loan modification after a salesperson identified herself as a fi rm employee and gave her false and misleading information about the firm . Respondent performed no work on client's behalf and neve r contacted her lender.

Client Couple C paid respondent $2,800 to help them obtain a loan modification after their own attempts were unsuccessful. They were repeatedly asked to submit documents they had already submitted and experienced a lack of responsiv eness from firm contacts.

Respondent's conduct in these matters viol ated the following portions of the Tennessee Rules of Profession al Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1. 5, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

18. Texas, Matters 13-DE-L-0054, 13-DE-L-1156, 13-DE-L-0215, and 13-DE-L-0062

Client A paid respondent $1,300 after a salesperson promised him the firm could obtain specific loan modification terms for him. C lient submitted the requested paperwork, but it was returned to him with instructions to mail it to his lender. He then received a phone call advising him that he would have to pursue the matter on his own. Client 's phone calls and emails to the firm went unanswered. After filing a comp laint with the Better Business Bureau, client received a call from the firm offering to represent him for an additional payment of $1,600. The calle r guaranteed favorable results, while noting that such a guarantee is illegal. Client made th e additional payment and again communication ceased.

Client Couple B hired respondent to he lp them obtain a loan modification. They were advised by their non-lawye r firm contact to stop paying their mortgage even after their income in creased significantly. Shortly after clients paid the entire $2,900 fee, th eir firm contacts stopped communicatingwith them. Thereafter, the lender asse ssed a large amount of fees for late payments and began fo reclosure proceedings.

Client Couple C paid $2,900 after re ceiving legal advice and misleading information from a firm salesperson. They were unable to speak with respondent. They were told their m odification had been worked out but never received a ny paperwork.

Client D hired respondent to help her obtain a loan modification, agreeing to pay the firm's $2,900 fee in four $750 [sic] installments. Shortly after her first payment to respondent, client's lende r offered to modify her loan if she made certain payments over three mont hs. She forwarded the lender's offer to her firm contact, but was instructed not to make payments or acknowledge the offer as the firm could negotiate a better interest ra te. Respondent was then suspended, and her firm contact to ld Client D to make the payments the lender offered. Her file and personal information were then shared with another firm without her knowledge or consent.

Respondent's conduct in these matters viol ated the following portions of the Texas Rules of Professiona l Conduct: 1.01, 1.04, 1.05, 1.15, 5.03, 5.05, 7.02, 8.01(b), and 8.04(a)(3).

19. Virginia, Matter 13-DE-L-1191

Client hired respondent after a salesp erson emailed her fa lse and misleading information about respondent and hi s services. After paying $2,900 and repeatedly submitting paperwork, client questioned the firm's conduct. The firm contacts stopped communicating with her.

Respondent's conduct in this matter viol ated Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

20. Washington, Matters 13-DE-L -0413, 13-DE-L-0314, 13-DE-L-0370, and 13-DE-L-0433

Client A paid respondent $2,900 but did not receive the services she was promised. Respondent did not surrende r her file upon his suspension, but the loan modification processing compan y forwarded the electronic file they maintained to the ATP.Client B paid respondent $2,900 after a salesperson's statements gave him an unreasonable expectation of what the firm could accomplish for him. Client stopped making mortgage payments per his firm contact's instructions. Respondent was suspended approximately one week after client's final payment, and did not pr ovide any meaningful re presentation. After respondent's suspension, confidential in formation from c lient's file was shared with another law firm withou t client's knowledge or consent.

A salesperson gave Client C mislea ding information about the services respondent could provide and persuaded her to divert funds earmarked for her mortgage payments to pay the firm . Soon after she paid the $2,900 fee, all communication with the firm ceased. Respondent provided no meaningful representation to client a nd she lost her home in foreclosure.

Client Couple D decided against hiring respondent's firm, but relented after the salesperson continued calling them a nd would not take no for an answer. They paid $1,000 toward the fee before signing a fee agreement. They then changed their minds and requested a refund, but did not receive one.

Respondent's conduct violated the following portions of the Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c).

SANCTION

The authority to discipline lawyers and th e manner in which discipline is imposed is a matter within the Court's discretion. In re Jardine , 410 S.C. 369, 764 S.E.2d 924 (2014) (internal citation om itted). When the lawyer is in default, the sole question before the Court is that of the appropriate sanction. Id . In determining the sanction, the Court will consider the respondent's failure to cooperate with ODC's investigation, his false statements to ODC, and his failure to appear at the disciplinary hearing. Id

. The magnitude of respondent's misconduct mandates disbarment. The Panel found respondent was subject to discipline pursuan t to Rules 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2), 7(a)(3), 7(a)(4), 7(a)(5), 7(a)(6), and 7(a)(10), RL DE, Rule 413. We ag ree with the Panel's findings and adopt its recommendations as to additional sanctions which are warranted here. Prior to seeking reinstat ement, respondent must pay the costs ofthis disciplinary proceeding, make restitu tion to the fortynine clients identified in the attached list, repay the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection for any payments made on respondent's behalf, and complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program, Ethics School, Trust Account School, and Advertising School.

CONCLUSION

Within fifteen (15) days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showi ng that he has complie d with Rule 30 of Rule 413, SCACR, and shall also surrend er his Certificate of Admission to the Practice of Law to the Clerk of Court.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,

concur.

APPENDIX

1. $32,000 to the complain ant in Matter 12-DE-L-1459;

2. $5,000 to the complainan t in Matter 12-DE-L-1470;

3. $5,000 to the client in Matter 12-DE-L-1492;

4. $20,000 to the complain ant in Matter 12-DE-L-1602;

5. $2,000 to the complainan t in Matter 13-DE-L-0006;

6. $25,000 to the client s in Matter 13-DE-L-0007;

7. $700,000 to the complainants in Matter 13-DE-L-0075;

8. $50,000 to the complain ant in Matter 13-DE-L-0080;

9. $50,000 to the third person in Matter 13-DE-L-0096;

10. $10,000 to the client in Matter 13-DE-L-0326;

11. $410,000 to the investor in Matter 13-DE-L-0817;12. $500 to the client in Matter 13-DE-L-1046;

13. $2,900 to Arkansas Client Couple in Matter 13-DE-L-0337;

14. $2,900 to California Client A;

15. $2,800 to California Client B;

16. $2,900 to California Client Mr. C;

17. $2,900 to California Client Couple D;

18. $2,900 to Colorado Client;

19. $2,900 to Connectic ut Client Couple A;

20. $2,900 to Conn ecticut Client B;

21. $2,400 to Conn ecticut Client C;

22. $2,900 to Florida Client;

23. $2,900 to Georgia Client;

24. $2,900 to Idaho Client;

25. $2,900 to Illinois Client A;

26. $2,900 to Illinois Client Couple B;

27. $2,175 to Kentucky Client A;

28. $2,900 to Kentucky Client Couple B;

29. $3,500 to Maine Client;

30. $3,495 to New Hampshire Client;

31. $967 to New Jersey Client;32. $2,900 to Neva da Client Couple;

33. $2,900 to New York Client;

34. $2,495 to North Carolina Client Couple;

35. $2,900 to Pennsylvania Client A;

36. $2,900 to Pennsylvania Client B;

37. $3,000 to Pennsylva nia Client Couple C;

38. $2,000 to Pennsylvania Client D;

39. $2,200 to Tennessee Client A;

40. $2,900 to Tennessee Client B;

41. $2,800 to Tennessee Client Couple C;

42. $2,900 to Texas Client A;

43. $2,900 to Texa s Client Couple B;

44. $2,900 to Texa s Client Couple C;

45. $2,900 to Texas Client D;

46. $2,900 to Virginia Client;

47. $2,900 to Washington Client A;

48. $2,900 to Washington Client B;

49. $2,900 to Washington Client C; and

50. $1,000 to Washington Client Couple D.