THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Richard J. Breibart, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001982 

Opinion No. 27592 

Submitted November 4, 2015 – Filed November 25, 2015 

DISBARRED 

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and C. Tex 

Davis, Jr., Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of 

Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Richard J. Breibart, of Lexington, 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 

disbarment with conditions. He requests the disbarment be imposed retroactively 

to June 1, 2012, the date of his interim suspension. In the Matter of Breibart, 398 

S.C. 123, 727 S.E.2d 740 (2012). We accept the Agreement and disbar respondent 

from the practice of law in this state retroactively to the date of respondent's

interim suspension. We further impose the conditions as stated hereafter in this 

opinion. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows. 

Facts 

Matter I 

From January 1, 1993 through December 31, 2003, respondent performed legal 

services for or rendered legal advice to Client A on more than one occasion and, as 
 

a result, established an attorney/client relationship with Client A. Respondent 

engaged in business transactions with and/or received loans from Client A on more 

than one occasion while he was respondent's client or a client of respondent's law 

practice. 

Matter II 

Respondent self-reported that, from 1994 until 2002, he borrowed significant sums

of monies from several clients. He admits that some of the loans were not 

transmitted in writing to the clients and/or the clients did not consent in writing to 

essential terms of the loan and respondent's role in the transaction. 

Matter III 

In September 2012, respondent was indicted on ten (10) counts of mail fraud, 

extortion, and wire fraud. Respondent was charged with devising a scheme 

whereby he obtained money and property from his clients by false and fraudulent 

pretenses. The scheme with regard to some of respondent's clients was as follows:

respondent would contact clients, former clients, or family members of former 

clients who had readily accessible money and inform them that the clients were in 

imminent danger of being arrested and/or of losing their money; he would instruct 

the clients or clients' family members to transfer large sums of money to him to be 

deposited in his trust account for safekeeping or to ensure that the investigation 

would be closed; he encouraged the clients or clients' family members to locate as

much money as possible, including liquidating retirement accounts and asking 

family members for money; respondent would accept the funds from his clients or 

his clients' family members and convert those funds to pay for expenses and 

obligations relating to his law firm, to himself personally, and to other clients. 

There were never any civil actions or criminal investigations regarding the claims 

respondent made to his clients. 

On August 12, 2013, respondent pled guilty to one count of mail fraud. On March 

4, 2014, respondent was sentenced to sixty-three (63) months in the custody of the 

United States Bureau of Prisons and to three (3) years of supervised release. In 

addition, respondent was ordered to begin repayment of restitution of 

$2,419,326.50 in monthly payments of $100 sixty (60) days after his release from 

prison. 
Matter IV 

Respondent represented Complainant's son on state criminal charges. Respondent 

informed Complainant that he might be the target of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation in relation to the son's criminal charges and, that, in addition to 

potential criminal charges, Complainant might be exposed to potential civil 

liability. Respondent instructed Complainant to liquidate and transfer all available 

funds to respondent to be held in his trust account for safekeeping. Complainant 

transferred $393,526.29 to respondent pursuant to respondent's request. 

Respondent accepted the funds from Complainant and converted those funds to 

pay expenses and obligations relating to his law firm, to respondent personally, and 

to other clients. Respondent represents he was contacted by the United States 

Attorney's Office regarding the conduct of Complainant's son and/or other family 

members, however, there was no formal federal investigation. Complainant filed a 

claim with the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers' Fund) and was 

awarded $9,546.08.

Matter V 

On or about October 2011, Client B retained respondent to represent him in a 

divorce action. At that time, respondent instructed Client B that his retainer fee 

would be $45,000. Respondent instructed Client B that it would also be in his best 

interests to transfer an additional $45,000 to respondent to make it more difficult 

for Client B's wife to find and obtain the proceeds during the divorce. Client B 

wired $90,000 to respondent. At the time of respondent's interim suspension, 

Client B's funds were gone and there was no accounting as to how the funds had 

been used by respondent. Client B had to secure new counsel to complete his 

divorce case. Client B did not file a claim with the Lawyers' Fund. 

Matter VI 

On or about July 2011, Clients C retained respondent to represent them in a civil 

action to recover damages to their property. Clients C paid respondent a $15,000 

retainer which was characterized in the retainer agreement as a "non-refundable" 

retainer. In or around December 2011, Clients C contacted respondent because 

they were not satisfied with the lack of communication and diligence from 

respondent. Clients C informed respondent that they wished to terminate the 

relationship and requested the return of any unearned legal fees and their client 

file. Respondent informed Clients C that, pursuant to the retainer agreement he 

had "set up the file" and that the $15,000 retainer had been earned. Respondent 
informed Clients C that he could continue the representation or they could drop the 

case, but that, in either event, he was keeping the retainer fee. Clients C reluctantly 

elected to continue with the case. At the time of respondent's interim suspension, 

Clients C retrieved their client file from the Attorney to Protect Respondent's

Clients' Interests. The client file consisted mostly of materials provided to

respondent from Clients C. There was no correspondence by respondent or any 

documents from an alleged expert witness, as respondent had discussed with 

Clients C. Clients C filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and were awarded 

$1,1551.24. 

Matter VII 

On May 12, 2011, Client D retained respondent to represent him in an action to 

recover misappropriated funds. Client D paid respondent a $10,000 retainer fee. 

In February 2012, respondent informed Client D that he was negotiating a 

settlement. In May 2012, Client D telephoned respondent on several occasions 

seeking an update about the status of his case. Respondent failed to return these 

calls. On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. 

Complainant D retrieved his client file from the Attorney to Protect Respondent's

Clients' Interests. The client file consisted of the retainer agreement, a copy of the 

cancelled retainer check, and one letter. The file did not contain any accounting of 

how the legal fees had been earned by respondent. Client D filed a claim with the 

Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $1,193.26. 

Matter VIII 

Client E retained respondent on April 12, 2012, to represent him on pending 

criminal charges. As of May 2012, Client E had paid respondent $25,000 in legal 

fees. On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. There were 

insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned fees to 

Client E. Client E filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded 

$2,983.15. 

Matter VIX 

On April 27, 2012, Client F retained respondent to represent her on pending 

criminal charges. Client F paid respondent $7,500 in legal fees. On June 1, 2012, 

respondent was placed on interim suspension. There were insufficient funds in 

respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Client F. Client F 

filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $724.90. 
 

Matter X 

In June 2011, Complainant retained respondent to represent her son who had 

pending federal and state criminal charges. Complainant paid respondent $25,000 

in legal fees to handle the case. Respondent assured Complainant that he would be 

able to consolidate both federal and state criminal charges. 

Respondent appeared with Complainant's son in October 2011 for him to enter a 

plea to the state charges. Respondent informed his client that he would receive an 

eight (8) year sentence when, in fact, the client received a twelve (12) year 

sentence. Respondent failed to communicate with client after the plea. At the time 

of respondent's interim suspension, the client's federal charges were still pending. 

Complainant filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $1,193.26.

Matter XI 

Client G paid respondent $125,000 to represent him in various matters. On June 1, 

2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. There were insufficient funds 

in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Client G. Client 

G filed a complaint with the Lawyers' Fund. He was awarded $4,773.04. 

Matter XII 

In December 2009, Client H retained respondent to represent her in a criminal 

matter. Client H paid respondent $7,500 in legal fees. Client H's case was 

unresolved at the time of respondent's interim suspension on June 1, 2012. There 

were insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal 

fees to Client H. Client H filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded 

$417.64. 

Matter XIII 

In July 2011, Client I retained respondent to handle a child custody modification 

case. Client I paid respondent $7,500 in legal fees. On June 1, 2012, respondent 

was placed on interim suspension. At that time, Client I's case was still 

unresolved. There were insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return 

any unearned legal fees to Client I. Client I filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund 

and was awarded $447.47.
 

Matter XIV 

Client J retained respondent in June 2009 to represent him in two disability actions 

against Liberty Mutual and Wells Fargo and paid respondent $25,000 in legal fees. 

In October 2009, respondent informed Client J that he needed an additional 

$15,000 in legal fees. Respondent had Client J execute an Agreement in which 

respondent guaranteed that the $15,000 would be refunded to Client J regardless of 

the result of the cases. Both cases were resolved by the end of March 2010. On 

June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. There were 

insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to 

Client J. Client J filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded 

$4,057.08. 

Matter XV 

On April 7, 2011, Client K retained respondent to represent her in a custody matter 

and paid respondent $7,500 in legal fees. Client K's case was still unresolved 

when respondent was placed on interim suspension on June 1, 2012. There were 

insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to 

Client K. Client K filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $447.47. 

Matter XVI 

In early 2009, Client L had retained respondent to handle a domestic matter. In 

early 2011, Client L met with respondent to discuss another matter regarding her 

husband. Respondent convinced Client L that her husband was involved in a tax 

evasion scheme and that Client L needed to set up a trust account for the benefit of 

her four children. Client L transferred $130,000 from her money market account 

to respondent's trust account. In fact, Client L's husband was not being 

investigated for any criminal scheme. 

On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. There were 

insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any monies to Client L. 

Client L filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $4,773.04. 

Matter XVII 

In May 2009, Client M retained respondent to represent her in a civil matter. 

Client M paid respondent $40,000 in legal fees. On June 1, 2012, respondent was 

placed on interim suspension. At that time, Client M's case was still unresolved.

There were insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned 
legal fees to Client M. Client M filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was 

awarded $3,221.80. 

Matter XVIII 

In November 2010, Client N retained respondent to set up a conservatorship for his 

son who was due to be released from prison. On November 30, 2010, Client N 

transferred $125,000 to respondent's trust account to fund the conservatorship. 

Respondent informed Client N that he would file the appropriate documents with 

the Probate Court to establish the conservatorship. 

In May 2011, Client N's son was released from prison. Client N's son died in June 

2011. At the time, respondent had not set up the conservatorship. Client N 

requested respondent return the $125,000. Respondent rebuffed Client N's request 

and told him he would release the funds after the probate of the son's estate. 

In August 2011, Client N sold his home. At the closing, Client N learned that the 

Department of Justice held a $17,500 lien on the property relating to the son. 

Respondent instructed Client N to deposit $27,000 into his trust account and that 

he would work to resolve the lien. Client N transferred $27,000 into respondent's

trust account. As months passed, respondent failed to keep Client N apprised of 

his progress on both matters. 

On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. There were 

insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to 

Client N. Client N filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded 

$4,773.04. 

Matter XIX 

Client O retained respondent for a domestic matter and paid respondent a $5,000 

retainer fee. On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. 

Client O's case was still unresolved. There were insufficient funds in respondent's

trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Client O. Client O filed a claim 

with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $298.31. 

Matter XX 

On March 31, 2012, Complainant retained respondent to represent her son in a 

criminal matter. Complainant paid respondent $25,000. Respondent went to 

Complainant's son's first hearing. On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on 
 

interim suspension. Complainant son's case was still unresolved. There were 

insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to 

Complainant. Complainant filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded 

$2,386.52. 

Matter XXI 

On May 15, 2012, Client P retained respondent to represent him on a charge of 

Public Disorderly Conduct. Client P paid a $5,200 retainer fee to respondent. On 

June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. Client P's case was 

unresolved at the time of respondent's suspension. There were insufficient funds in

respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Client P. Client P 

had to retain another attorney to complete his case. Client P filed a claim with the 

Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $596.63. 

Matter XXII 

Client Q retained respondent to represent her on a criminal charge of Harassment 

in the 2nd degree and paid respondent a $7,500 retainer fee. Respondent failed to 

handle Client Q's case in a diligent manner. 

On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. Client Q's case 

was unresolved at the time of respondent's suspension. There were insufficient 

funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Client Q. 

Client Q had to retain another attorney to complete her case. Client Q filed a claim 

with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $313.23. 

Matter XXIII 

On April 16, 2012, Client R retained respondent to represent him on a criminal 

charge. Client R paid respondent $8,974.14. On the same date, respondent sent a 

letter to the court requesting a jury trial. 

On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. Client R's case 

was unresolved at the time of respondent's suspension. No other work than the 

jury trial request had been performed by respondent. There were insufficient funds 

in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Client R. Client 

R had to retain another attorney to complete his case. Client R filed a claim with 

the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $856.76. 
Matter XXIV 

Client S retained respondent on May 18, 2011, to represent him in a domestic 

matter and paid respondent a $5,000 retainer fee. On October 13, 2011, respondent 

made a court appearance on Client S's behalf. 

On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. Client S's case 

was unresolved at the time of respondent's suspension. There were insufficient 

funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Client S. 

Client S filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $298.31. 

Matter XXV 

Complainant retained respondent to represent her juvenile son in a criminal matter. 

She paid a $25,000 retainer fee to respondent. Other than a few telephone calls, 

respondent performed little to no work on the case. 

On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. Complainant's 

son's case was unresolved at the time of respondent's suspension. Complainant had 

to borrow additional funds to hire another attorney. There were insufficient funds 

in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Complainant. 

Complainant filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $2,983.15.

Matter XXVI 

On April 3, 2012, Client T retained respondent to represent him in a domestic 

matter. Client T paid respondent a retainer of $500. On June 1, 2012, respondent 

was placed on interim suspension. Client T's case was unresolved at the time of 

respondent's suspension. There were insufficient funds in respondent's trust 

account to return any unearned legal fees to Client T. Client T filed a claim with 

the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $47.73. 

Matter XXVII 

Client U retained respondent to represent her in connection with injuries suffered 

in an automobile accident. Respondent was able to negotiate a $23,000 settlement. 

Client U executed the necessary release and endorsed the settlement check in 

March 2012. The funds were deposited in respondent's trust account. On June 1, 

2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. There were insufficient funds 
in respondent's trust account to return any settlement monies to Client U. Client U 

filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $2,571.83. 

Matter XXVIII 

In May 2010, Client V retained respondent to handle a criminal matter. Client V 

paid a $40,000 retainer fee to respondent. On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed 

on interim suspension. Client V's criminal matter was still pending at that time. 

There were insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned 

legal fees to Client V. Client V filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was 

awarded $4,057.08.

Matter XXIX 

In September 2007, Client W retained respondent to handle civil litigation against 

his partners in SouthCable, LLC. Client W paid respondent an initial retainer fee 

of $25,000. Respondent later informed Client W that the South Financial Group 

was going to bring litigation against Client W. Client W paid respondent $100,000 

to defend this alleged litigation. The litigation did not materialize. Over the years, 

Client W paid respondent an additional $134,000 for this matter. At the time of 

respondent's interim suspension on June 1, 2012, the SouthCable, LLC, matter had 

been tried and the court was waiting for a proposed order from the parties. There 

were insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal 

fees to Client W. Client W filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund. Client W was 

awarded $4,773.04. 

Matter XXX 

In March 2012, Client X retained respondent to handle a domestic matter. Client 

X paid respondent a $7,500 retainer fee. On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed 

on interim suspension. Client X's domestic matter was still pending at that time. 

There were insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any unearned 

legal fees to Client X. Client X filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was 

awarded $626.46.

Matter XXXI 

Client Y retained respondent in October 2011 to represent him against an 

allegation of child molestation. Client Y paid respondent a $25,000 retainer fee. 

On June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. Client Y's client 

file contained no evidence of any work completed by respondent. No criminal 
charges were ever brought against Client Y. There were insufficient funds in 

respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Client Y. 

Matter XXXII 

In May 2011, Client Z retained respondent to represent him in a suit against 

Michelin North America, Inc. in an effort to remove his ex-wife from being a 

beneficiary for death benefits. Client Z paid respondent a $20,000 retainer fee. On 

June 1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. Client Z learned that 

very little work had been done on his case. There were insufficient funds in 

respondent's trust account to return any unearned legal fees to Client Z. Client Z 

filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund. Client Z was awarded $2,016.61.

Matter XXXIII 

Client AA retained respondent in July 2009 because of a concern about potential 

criminal charges. Client AA paid respondent a $7,500 retainer fee. Periodically, 

Client AA would call respondent to find out the status of the potential charges. 

Respondent would inform Client AA that he was "working" on the case. On June 

1, 2012, respondent was placed on interim suspension. Client AA obtained his 

client filed from the Attorney to Protect Respondent's Clients' Interests. The only 

document in the file was a notation that respondent had reviewed the file in August 

2011. There were insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to return any 

unearned legal fees to Client AA. Client AA filed a claim with the Lawyers' Fund 

and was awarded $894.94. 

Matter XXXIV 

On March 6, 2012, Client BB retained respondent for a child support modification 

case. Client BB paid respondent a $5,250 retainer fee. On June 1, 2012, 

respondent was placed on interim suspension. Client BB's domestic matter was 

still pending at that time. There were insufficient funds in respondent's trust 

account to return any unearned legal fees to Client BB. Client BB filed a claim 

with the Lawyers' Fund. Client BB was awarded $544.36.

Matter XXXV 

Client CC retained respondent in early 2009 to represent him on drug-related 

criminal charges. Client CC paid respondent a $20,000 retainer fee. On March 4, 

2010, Client CC pled guilty to Trafficking in Cocaine, more than twenty-eight (28) 

grams. Client CC only pled guilty because of misrepresentations made by 
 

 

 

 

 

respondent. Specifically, respondent told Client CC that a suppression motion had 

been filed and denied by the court. This was untrue. In addition, respondent did 

not allow Client CC to cooperate with law enforcement officials. Client CC's

cooperation could have resulted in a reduced sentence. On September 24, 2013, 

Client CC's Application for Post-Conviction Relief was granted based on 

respondent's misrepresentations. 

Matter XXXVI

Client DD retained respondent to handle various legal matters for him and his 

businesses. Over the years, respondent held substantial monies in trust for Client 

DD. At the time of his interim suspension, respondent should have held $236,500 

in trust for Client DD. Respondent admits that Client DD's monies were 

misappropriated by him to pay for expenses and obligations related to his law firm, 

to himself personally, and to other clients. There were insufficient funds in 

respondent's trust account to return any monies to Client DD. Client DD filed a 

claim with the Lawyers' Fund and was awarded $4,773.04.1

Claims Awarded and Paid by the Lawyers' Fund 

According to the Agreement for Discipline by Consent, the Lawyers' Fund 

received claims totaling $5,606,281.33 against respondent and approved awards in 

the amount of $1,676,081.96. Due to the cap on payments, the Lawyers' Fund paid 

a total of $200,000.07 to the claimants, most of whom only received a small 

percentage of the amount approved.2

Law 

Respondent admits that by his conduct he violated the following provisions of the 

Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) contained in Rule 407 of the South Carolina 

Appellate Court Rules (SCACR): Rule 1.1 (lawyer shall provide competent 

representation); Rule 1.2 (lawyer shall abide by client's decisions regarding 

1 Not all instances of client misconduct are necessarily identified in this opinion; 

instances of misconduct are addressed in the Plea Agreement and Judgment in a 

Criminal Case which are attached to the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and 

are matters of public record.

2 See Rule 411(c) (1), SCACR (payment to any claimant by Lawyers' Fund shall 

not exceed sum of $40,000 per claim; provided, however, that the aggregate total 

of claims paid per attorney shall not exceed $200,000).
objectives of representation); Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence 

and promptness in representing client); Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall reasonably consult 

with client about means by which client's objectives are to be accomplished, keep 

client reasonably informed about status of matter, and promptly comply with 

reasonable requests for information); Rule 1.5 (lawyer shall not make agreement 

for, charge, or collect unreasonable fee or unreasonable amount for expenses); 

Rule 1.8 (lawyer shall not enter into business transaction with client or knowingly 

acquire pecuniary interest adverse to client unless transaction and terms on which 

lawyer acquires interest are fair and reasonable to client and are fully disclosed and 

transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by client, 

client is advised in writing of desirability of seeking and is given reasonable 

opportunity to seek advice of independent legal counsel on transaction, and client 

gives informed consent, in a writing signed by client, to essential terms of 

transaction and lawyer's role in the transaction, including whether lawyer is 

representing client in transaction); Rule 1.15 (lawyer shall hold property of clients 

or third persons in lawyer's possession in connection with representation separate 

from lawyer's own property; lawyer shall deposit into client trust account unearned 

legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by lawyer 

only as fees are earned or expenses incurred, unless lawyer and client have entered 

into written agreement concerning handling of fees paid in advance pursuant to 

Rule 1.5(f), RPC; lawyer shall promptly deliver to client or third person any funds 

or other property client or third person entitled to receive); Rule 1.16 (upon 

termination of representation, lawyer shall refund any advance payment of fee or 

expense that has not been earned or incurred); Rule 3.4 (lawyer shall not falsify 

evidence); Rule 8.1 (in connection with disciplinary matter, lawyer shall not 

knowingly make false statement of material fact or fail to disclose fact necessary to 

correct misapprehension known by lawyer to have arisen in disciplinary matter, or 

knowingly fail to respond to lawful demand for information from disciplinary 

authority); Rule 8.4 (a) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to violate Rules of 

Professional Conduct); Rule 8.4(b) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to 

commit criminal act that reflects adversely on lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or 

fitness as lawyer in other respects); Rule 8.4(c) (it is professional misconduct for 

lawyer to commit criminal act involving moral turpitude); Rule 8.4(d) (it is 

professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct 

for lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice). In 

addition, respondent admits his conduct violated the Lawyer's Oath contained in 

Rule 402(k),SCACR. Respondent further admits his conduct violated provisions 

of Rule 417, SCACR. 
 

Respondent also admits he has violated the following Rules for Lawyer 

Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (it is ground for 

discipline for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct) and Rule 7(a)(5) (it 

is ground for discipline for lawyer to engage in conduct tending to pollute 

administration of justice or bring courts or legal profession into disrepute or 

conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law). 

Conclusion 

We accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and disbar respondent from

the practice of law in this state, retroactively to June 1, 2012, the date of his interim

suspension. In the Matter of Breibart, supra. In addition, we impose the following 

conditions: 

1. within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall enter into 

a payment plan with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) 

to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter 

by ODC and the Commission ($1,059.41) and to reimburse the Lawyers' 

Fund for all amounts paid to the claimants ($200,000.07); the payment plan 

shall consider respondent's ability to pay and all obligations are subject to 

the terms and conditions of prior judicial orders;

2. respondent shall not apply for readmission until he has completed all terms 

and conditions of his criminal sentence, including the payment of fines and 

restitution;3

3. respondent shall not apply for readmission until he has paid in full a) all 

parties whose claims approved by the Lawyers' Fund were only partially 

paid;4

 b) $90,000 to Client B who did not file a claim with the Lawyers'

Fund and is not covered by the criminal restitution plan; and c) $25,000 to 

Client Y who did not file a claim with the Lawyers' Fund and is not covered 

by the criminal restitution plan; and 

4. respondent shall complete the Trust Account School prior to applying for 

readmission. 

3 See Matter III.

4

 Payments to these parties may be offset by any amount paid by respondent 

through the criminal restitution plan. 
Within fifteen (15) 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 of 

Rule 413, SCACR, and shall also surrender his Certificate of Admission to the 

Practice of Law to the Clerk of Court. 

DISBARRED. 

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

concur.