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

In the Matter of Brian N. Davis, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002431

Opinion No. 27480 Submitted November 19, 2014 – Filed January 21, 2015

DISBARRED

Lesley M. Coggiola, Discip linary Counsel, and Barbara

M. Seymour, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

J. Steedley Bogan, Esquire , of Bogan Law Firm of Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and respondent have entere d into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 4 13 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agre ement, respondent admits mi sconduct and consents to disbarment with conditions. Respondent re quests that the disbarment be imposed retroactively to August 12, 2013, the date of his interim suspension. In the Matter
of Davis , 405 S.C. 65, 747 S.E.2d 434 (2 013). We accept the Agreement and disbar respondent from the practice of law in this state with conditions as set forth hereafter in this opinion. The disbarment shall not be imposed retroactively. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.Facts

A. Fraudulent Title Commitments a nd Title Insurance Policies

Matter I

Respondent's law practice included conducting residential real estate loan closings. In 2007, Chicago Title Company (Chi cago Title) canceled respondent's title agency. From that point, respondent had approved attorney status and issued title commitments and polices through the title agen cy of his father who is a lawyer. In 2011, when Chicago Title learned of i rregularities in some of respondent's closings, it canceled respondent's approved attorney status. From 2011 until his interim suspension in 2013, respondent c ontinued to issue title commitments and policies using the Chicago Title name. Respondent altered Chicago Title's form documents to make it appear as though the company was issuing policies on his closings. At his closings, respondent al so collected funds for the purpose of paying title insurance premiums, which he ne ver paid. Respondent 's misconduct left
lenders and owners without title insuran ce and some lenders a nd owners sustained losses as a result of respondent's misappropriation of funds.

In addition to the matters set forth in Pa rt B below, respondent collected money for title insurance that he did not properl y pay to Chicago Title in closings for Client AA, Client BB, C lient CC, Client DD, Clie nt EE, and Client FF.

Matter II

Respondent's law firm was licensed as a title agency by Comm onwealth Land Title Company (Commonwealth). In 2008, respondent issued title commitments to a lender in connection with two closings. At those closings, respondent collected title insurance premiums, but he neither tendered payment to Commonwealth nor issued the policies to the lender.

Commonwealth can celed respondent's title agency in January 2011. After January 2011, respondent continued to issue title commitments to lenders in connection with closings without authority from Co mmonwealth. At the closings, respondent collected funds for the purposes of payi ng title insurance premiums which he did not pay. In June 2013, a lender contacted Commonwealth with a demand for finaltitle policies. After seve ral emails from Commonwealth, respondent delivered the premiums and Commonwealth issued the policies.

B. Misappropriation of Funds from Trust

Matter I

Sometime in December 2012, re spondent disbursed funds in connection with a real estate closing prior to receipt of loan pro ceeds. Ultimately, the loan did not fund. For the next three and a half years, res pondent engaged in a pattern of paying off his clients' existing mortgages with pro ceeds from subsequent, unrelated closings. Because respondent failed to maintain records of financ ial transactions required by Rule 417, SCACR, ODC is una ble to determine the extent of the misappropriation, except as set forth below.

Matter II

On February 23, 2012, re spondent conducted a closing on a refinance transaction

for Client A. The lender wired the loan proceeds into respondent's trust account for disbursement on February 28, 2012. However, respondent had already negotiated a check payable to his law firm in the amount of $1,353.00 for attorney's fees and title insurance premiu ms on February 17, 2012, more than a week before closing and receipt of funds. The financial records respondent delivered to the Receiver upon his interi m suspension were insufficient to
determine whether or not respondent properly disbursed the remainder of the funds. The check payabl e to the law firm included $803.00 for lender's title insurance, however, respondent did not i ssue a title policy. Commonwealth issued a policy upon receipt of payment from respondent in June 2013.

Matter III

On February 24, 2012, re spondent conducted a closing on a refinance transaction
for Client B. The lender wired the loan proceeds into respondent's trust account for disbursement on February 28, 2012. Ho wever, respondent ha d already negotiated a check payable to his law firm in the am ount of $1,101.00 for attorney's fees and title insurance premiums on February 16, 2012, more than a week before closing and receipt of funds. The financial records respondent delivered to the Receiver upon his interim suspension were insufficient to determine whether or not respondent properly disbursed the remainder of the funds. Th e check payable to the law firm included $551.00 for lender's title insurance, however, respondent didnot issue a title policy. Commonwealth issued a policy upon receipt of payment from respondent in June 2013.

Matter IV

On August 6, 2012, respondent conducted a closing on a re finance transaction for Client C. On August 10, 2012, the le nder wired the loan proceeds into respondent's trust account. However, re spondent had alrea dy negotiated a check payable to his law firm in the amount of $1,297.10 for attorney 's fees and title insurance premiums on July 12, 2012, one month before closing and receipt of funds. The financial records respondent delivered to the Receiver upon his interim suspension were insufficient to determ ine whether or not respondent properly

disbursed the remainder of the funds. Th e check payable to the law firm included $747.10 for lender's title insurance, how ever, respondent did not issue a title policy.

On September 7, 2012, respondent issued a check payable to his law firm from his trust account in the amount of $ 1,110.00 and deposited it into his operating account. On the memo line, respondent attr ibuted the check to fees for the Client C closing. Respondent was not entitled to any additional funds from the Client C closing at the time he negotiated this check.

Matter V

On August 31, 2012, respondent conducted a closing on a purchase of real estate for Client D. Respondent deposited funds brought to the closing and the lender wired the loan proceeds into respondent's trust account on the day of closing. However, respondent had alr eady negotiated a check payabl e to his law firm in the amount of $ 1,549.30 for attorney's fees and title insurance premiums on July 18, 2012, more than one month before closing and receipt of funds. The financial records respondent delivered to the Rece iver upon his interim suspension were

insufficient to determine whether or not respondent prope rly disbursed the remainder of the funds. The check pa yable to the law firm included $679.30 for lender's title insurance, however, res pondent did not issue a title policy.

Matter VI

On September 12, 2012, respo ndent conducted a closing on a refinance transaction for Client E. Respondent deposited funds brought to closing by Client E on the same day. The lender wired the loan pr oceeds into respondent's trust account onSeptember 14, 2012. Howeve r, respondent had already negotiated a check payable to his law firm in the amount of $1,120.00 for attorney's fees and title insurance premiums on August 22, 2012, more than thr ee weeks before closing and receipt of funds. The financial records respondent delivered to the Receiver upon his interim suspension were insufficient to determ ine whether or not respondent properly

disbursed the remainder of the funds. Th e check payable to the law firm included $231.00 for lender's title insurance, how ever, respondent did not issue a title policy.

Matter VII

Respondent was retained to conduct a home mo rtgage loan closing for Client F. The closing was conducted on October 17, 2012. The lende r wired the funds into respondent's trust account on October 19, 2012, to be disbursed on October 22, 2012. However, on September 4, 2012, approximately six weeks prior to receipt of the funds for closing, respondent issued a trust account check payable to his law firm in the amount of $1,002.60 which incl uded $442.60 for title insurance. At the time respondent negotiated this check, funds had not been deposited into his trust

account or otherwise receiv ed for this purpose.

Respondent conducted the closing as scheduled and delivered a trust account check

to Client F for the excess cash. Client F was able to ne gotiate the proceeds check, however, respondent failed to issue the payoff of the existing mortgage of $ 100,824.12 . In response to inquiries a bout the payoff from Client F and the new lender, respondent repeatedly made false assurances that the check had been sent. The balance in respondent's trust account dropped below the amount necessary to cover the remaining disbursement on appr oximately forty-nine occasions between December 31, 2012, and August 12, 2013, the date of respondent's interim suspension. Following his interim suspen sion, there were insufficient funds in respondent's trust accounts to cover the pa yoff of Client F's existing loan. As a result of respondent's misa ppropriation of Client F's loan proceeds, the holder of the existing mortgage filed a foreclosure action against Client F and the new lender on August 22, 2013.

Matter VIII

On October 23, 2012, responde nt conducted a closing on a refinance transaction
for Client G. The lender wired the loan proceeds into respondent's trust account on October 26, 2012. However, respondent had already nego tiated a check payable to his law firm in the amount of $ 1,263.50 for attorney 's fees and title insurancepremiums on September 19, 2012, more than one month before closing and receipt of funds. The financial records responde nt delivered to the Receiver upon his interim suspension were insufficient to determine whether or not respondent properly disbursed the remainder of the f unds. The check payable to the law firm included $713.00 for lender's title insurance, however, respondent did not issue a title policy.

Matter IX

On November 8, 2012, respondent c onducted a closing for Client H. On November 14, 2012, the lender wired $48, 416.77 into respondent's trust account. Disbursements were to include $ 39,056.33 to pay off the existing loan and $407.00 for title insurance. Respondent did not obt ain title insurance. The financial and file records respondent delivered to the Receiver upon his interim suspension were
not sufficient to determine what disburseme nts were made. The file did contain an original, unnegotiated check written to pay of the existing mortgage.

Matter X

On January 15, 2013, respondent conducted a closing for borrower Client I. The lender wired the loan proceeds into respondent's trust account on the day of the closing. However, respondent had alre ady negotiated a check payable to his law firm in the amount of $1,393.20 for attorn ey's fees and title in surance premiums on January 14, 2013, the day before closing a nd receipt of funds. The check payable to the law firm included $833.20 for le nder's title insurance and $100.00 for owner's title insurance, however, respond ent did not issue a title policy for the lender or the client. Responde nt properly disbursed the remainder of the funds.

Matter XI

On February 8, 2013, respondent conducted a closing on a refinance transaction for Client J. The lender wired loan pro ceeds into respondent's trust account on February 12, 2013. However, respondent had already negotiated a check payable to his law firm in the amount of $1,142.00 for attorney's fees and title insurance premiums on February 5, 2013, before clos ing and receipt of funds. The financial records respondent delivered to the Rece iver upon his interim suspensions were
insufficient to determine whether or not respondent prope rly disbursed the remainder of the funds. The check pa yable to the law firm included $385.00 for lender's title insurance, however res pondent did not issue a title policy.Matter XII

On February 15, 2013, re spondent conducted a closing on a refinance transaction
for Client K. The lender wired the loan proceeds into respondent's trust account on February 20, 2013. However, respondent had already negotiated a check payable to his law firm in the amount of $1,009.00 for attorney's fees and title insurance premiums on January 30, 2013, approxima tely two weeks before closing and receipt of funds. The check payable to the law firm included $349.00 for lender's title insurance, however, respondent did not issue a title policy.

Matter XIII

On February 18, 2013, respondent c onducted a second mortgage closing for
borrowers Client L and Client M. Th e lender wired the loan proceeds into respondent's trust account on February 22, 2013. However, respondent had already negotiated a check payable to his law firm in the amount of $1,095.00 for attorney's fees and title insurance premiu ms on February 7, 2013, more than a week before closing and receipt of funds. The check to the law firm included $280.00 for the lender's title insurance, ho wever, respondent did not issue a title policy for the lender or the clients.

Matter XIV

Respondent was scheduled to conduct a clos ing on February 22, 2013, for Mr. and Mrs. N (Client N) who were refinancing the first and second mortgages on their home. All three loans (first and second mo rtgage and the new mortgage) were all

from the same lender. Disbursements th at were to be ma de included $ 74,596.31 for the existing first mortgage, $ 64,172.23 to pay off the existing second mortgage, $ 3,259.26 to the lender for closing co sts, $16.00 to record the mortgage, $ 10,663.80 to Client N as excess cash, $5 60.00 to respondent for fees and costs, and $543.40 for title insurance.

Respondent issued a trust account check paya ble to his law firm in the amount of $ 1,103.40 on February 11, 2013, fifteen days prior to receipt of funds for the closing. At the time respondent nego tiated this check, funds had not been deposited into his trust account or othe rwise received for this purpose.

Respondent conducted the closing as sc heduled. On February 26, 2013, respondent received $ 154,000.00 into his trust account by wire from the lender to fund the closing. Respondent properl y disbursed the payoff of the secondmortgage and excess funds to close. He did not deliver the funds to the lender to pay off the first mortgage. The balanc e in respondent's trust account dropped below the amount necessary to cover th at payoff on approximately twenty-six occasions between April 1, 2013, and Au gust 12, 2013, the date of respondent's interim suspension. Respondent did not deliv er the payoff of the first mortgage of $ 74,596.31 . Following his interim suspension, there were insufficient funds in respondent's trust account to cover the payo ff of Client N's exis ting first mortgage. Respondent did not obtain title insurance as agreed.

In April 2013, Client N contacted res pondent upon discovering that their lender was continuing to draw monthly payments from their bank account for the old first mortgage. Respondent falsely informed Clie nt N that he had paid off the mortgage and they would receive a refund of the ex tra payments. In June 2013, Client N again contacted respondent because paymen ts were still being drafted from their bank account. In reliance on respondent 's assurances that the problem was resolved and the drafts were improper, C lient N cancelled the monthly drafts. In July 2013, the clients received a past due notice and then a delinquency notice

from the lender. For the next several months, respondent continued to make false assurances to Client N and postponed scheduled meetings with them.

Matter XV

Respondent was retained to conduct a home mo rtgage loan closing for Client O. The closing was scheduled for May 15, 2013, and included disbursement of $995.00 to respondent for fees and title insu rance, $25.00 to the Register of Deeds to record the mortgage, $ 34,786.22 to pay off Client O's existing mortgage, and $ 15,466.93 as excess cash to Client O.

Respondent issued a trust account check paya ble to his law firm in the amount of $955.00 on March 28, 2013, two months prior to receipt of funds for the closing. At the time respondent negotiated this check, funds had not been deposited into his

trust account or otherwise re ceived for this purpose.

Loan proceeds related to the closing were wired into respondent's trust account on May 15, 2013. Before disbursement at th e closing, the balance in respondent's trust account fell to $ 37,426.60 as a result of respondent's misappropriation of

funds.

Respondent conducted the closing as scheduled and delivered a trust account check
to Client O for the excess cash. Client O was able to negotiate the check, however,the balance in respondent's trust account dropped below the amount necessary to cover the remaining disbursements on ei ght occasions between May 20, 2013, and August 12, 2013, the date of respondent's interim suspension. Respondent did not deliver the payoff to the existing lende r. Respondent did not record the new mortgage. Respondent did not obtai n title insurance as agreed.

Matter XVI

On May 30, 2013, respondent conducted a refinance closing for Client P. On June 4, 2013, the lender wired the loan pro ceeds into respondent's trust account. However, on May 2, 2013, a m onth before closing and receipt of funds, respondent had already negotiated a chec k payable to his law firm in the amount of $1,647.30 for attorney' s fees, including $1,087.30 for the lender's title insurance. Respondent properly disbursed the remainder of the funds, however, he did not issue a title policy for the lender or the clients.

Matter XVII

On July 13, 2013, respondent conducted several real estate closings for Client Q in which Client Q received proceeds in the amount of $469,560.46. Respondent received proceeds for the purpose of holding them for the purchase of new properties. Respondent placed the funds in a 1031 exchange account, with his wife as signing agent for the Qualified Intermed iary, an LLC established by his wife for this purpose. 1 On July 18, 2013, one and one-hal f months after notice of the first grievance was sent to respondent, res pondent withdrew $ 51,810.00 from the 1031 exchange account and deposite d it into his law firm trust account. Between July 18, 2013, and August 13, 2013, the date of his interim suspension, the balance in respondent's trust account fell below $51,810. 00 on approximately three occasions. As a result of respondent's misappropriation, Client Q di d not have sufficient funds to purchase the new property.

C. Neglect of Litigation Matters

Matter I

Respondent represented Mr. and Mrs. R (Client R) in a variety of legal matters. In 2007, Client R consulted with respondent about a dispute over a timeshare in a houseboat. On March 13, 2009, Mrs. R wrote a letter to respondent with

1 Respondent's wife is a lawyer licensed to practice law in South Carolina.information related to the ongo ing dispute, enclosed a check for attorney's fees in the amount of $ 3,000.00 , and requested th at respondent "start litigation" on their behalf. Respondent did not reduce his fee arrangement regarding the timeshare litigation to writing, nor did he prepare an y billing statements or time records. After receipt of the retainer , Client R continued to gath er relevant information and documentation and submitted it to responde nt. Respondent did not conduct any investigation, research, or settlement negotiations.

In June 2010, Mrs. R filed a disciplinar y complaint against respondent alleging he had neglected the timeshare litigation and various other legal matters. Respondent filed a summons and complaint on behalf of Client R on October 8, 2010, after notice of the grievance. After filing su it, respondent took no meaningful action on

behalf of Client R in connection with the timeshare litigation. He did not serve the summons and complaint or ot herwise pursue the matter.

Mrs. R filed a second disciplinary complaint against respondent in August 2013 after her client file was delivered to her by the Receiver appointed upon respondent's interim suspension. Client R ultimately retained other counsel who

filed a notice of dismissal of their lawsu it without prejudice pursuant to Rule 40(j), SCACR, on January 13, 2014.

On June 26, 2011, respondent signed an agreement for discipline by consent in which he admitted to neglecting the ti meshare litigation to resolve the first disciplinary complaint filed by Mrs. R. Pu rsuant to the terms of that agreement, the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) issu ed a confidential admonition on the condition respondent complete the South Carolina Bar's Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics Sc hool no later than September 15, 2012. Respondent did not complete the program in spite of reminder letters from Commission Counsel dated September 28, 2011, April 22, 2013, and June 26,

2013.

Matter II

In 2006, Mr. and Mrs. S (Client S) paid respondent $5,000.00 as a retainer to represent them in connection with an easement dispute with their neighbor. Respondent filed an answer for Client S a nd engaged in extensive discovery. The master-in-equity ruled against Client S on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. On October 17, 2011, respondent filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Client S in the South Carolina Court of App eals. The Clerk's Office sent letters to respondent on November 7, 2011, Decemb er 21, 2011, and February 10, 2012,reminding him of his obligation to request a transcript of the hearing from the court reporter and timely file proof that he ha d done so. On February 12, 2012, opposing counsel served respondent with a letter ad dressed to the Clerk of Court asserting respondent had not requested the transcript from the court reporter. On March 7, 2012, the Clerk of Court filed an order dism issing Client S's appeal for failure to order the transcript. Respondent did not f ile a petition to reinst ate the appeal and
the Clerk of Court issu ed a remittitur.

Respondent believed his representation of Client S was limited to defending the lawsuit and he only filed the notice of ap peal to preserve his clients' rights; however, his written fee agreement contai ned no such limitation. Respondent admits that it was his responsibility to ensure that his written fee agreement specifically set forth the scope of his represen tation. Further, he admits that he was required to take steps to secure the tr anscript, comply with court rules, and formerly withdraw from the case.

Matter III

On April 27, 2009, Client T paid responde nt a $ 2,500.00 retainer to negotiate a

"short sale" and conduct a clos ing on her property. On several occasi ons between April 2009 and February 2010, Client T contacted respondent for information about the status of the negotiations. Respondent made repeated assurances that he was working on getting approval of the s hort sale and negotiating terms with the lender. After no progress on the matter, Client T contact ed her lender in February 2010 and was informed respondent had not c ontacted the lender about the matter at all. Client T made multip le written demands for the re fund of her retainer but respondent did not comply.

Matter IV

On August 7, 2009, Client U paid a reta iner of $ 2,500.00 to respondent for representation in negotiating a modificati on of his home mortgage loan. The written fee agreement specifically limited the scope of the representation to negotiations with the lender a nd filing an answer in the ev ent of foreclosure. The fee agreement called for payment of additiona l fees if Client U wished to retain respondent for court hearings and conteste d matters. For six months, respondent
took no action on behalf of Client U. In October 2009, January 2010, and February 2010, Mr. U received corres pondence from his lender attempting to

obtain information for consideration of a loan modification. Client U forwardedthese letters to respondent. On February 5, 2010, res pondent contacted Client U's

lender for the first time.

On May 13, 2010, Client U's lender filed a foreclosure action. On June 14, 2010, respondent filed an answer and counterclai m on behalf of Client U and his wife. Respondent took no further action on behalf of Client U.

On March 14, 2013, Client U forwarded respondent by fax the notice of rights regarding foreclosure intervention he r eceived from his lender. That notice advised Client U that he had thirty da ys to voluntary elect to participate in foreclosure intervention. Respondent di d not contact the lender or Client U regarding intervention.

On April 15, 2013, Client U was served with the lender's certification of compliance confirming that it had issued notice to him, but that he failed to voluntarily elect to participate in foreclos ure intervention. Client U forwarded the correspondence to respondent via fax. Respondent took no action and did not
communicate with Client U about it.

The master-in-equity held a foreclosur e hearing after notice to respondent as
counsel of record for Client U and his wife. Respondent di d not attend because Client U did not pay him any additiona l fees. Respondent did not move to withdraw as counsel. Respondent did not inform Client U or his wife of the hearing date or advise them about proceeding pro se

.

On August 12, 2013, the Court placed respondent on interim suspension. Id. Respondent failed to notify the court or o pposing counsel that he was suspended from the practice of law. On August 16 , 2013, respondent was served with a copy of the order from the master-in-equity ente ring judgment in favor of the lender and setting a sale date for the property. On August 18, 2013, Client U learned for the first time that his house was going to be sold as a result of the foreclosure.

Matter V

On September 12, 2008, Client V paid a retainer of $2,500.00 and $325.00 in advance costs to respondent for representation in a quiet title action regarding her deceased grandfather's house. Client V's ex-boyfriend had been arrested for fraudulently selling the property by forging C lient V's deceased gr andfather's name to a deed. Respondent attended the hearings in the criminal matter. For nearly three years, respondent continued to assure Client V that he was pursing the quiettitle action. On April 2011, Client V wrot e a letter to respondent imploring him to take some action to protect her interests and provide her with an update on the status of the matter. In fact, respondent took no action to secure the title for Client V until June 2011 when he filed a quiet title action and lis pendens. After attempting service of the lawsuit on the he irs, respondent t ook no further action on

Client V's behalf. The court sent roster notices to respondent in April and June 2013, but respondent did not take steps to move the case to a hearing.

On August 12, 2013, the Court placed respondent on interim suspension. Id. Respondent failed to notify the court or m ove to withdraw as counsel in this

matter.

Matter VI

On December 7, 2009, res pondent conducted a closing on a second mortgage for Mr. and Mrs. W (Client W). From the proceeds of that loan, Client W paid respondent a retainer of $ 2,500.00 to assist them in obtaining the satisfaction of an old mortgage from a defunct Georgia mo rtgage company. In the written fee agreement, respondent agreed to obtain sa tisfaction of the mortgage by "making a demand for satisfaction through the State of South Carolina and the State of Georgia administrative processes and, if necessary, filing a civil action in South Carolina to satisfy th e mortgage."

In February 2011, respondent conducted a closing on a second home purchased by Client W. Respondent did no t provide the clients with their deed. On September 1, 2011, after multiple phone calls, Mr. W se nt an email message to respondent asking about the status of the mortgage satisfaction and his original deed. Respondent did not respond.

Between December 2009 and August 2013, respondent took no meaningful action to secure satisfaction of Client W's mortgage. Respondent ne ither made a demand through any state administrative processe s nor filed a civil action on Client W's

behalf.

After respondent's interim suspension in A ugust 2013, Mr. W retained the services
of new counsel who obtained the satisfacti on of the old mortgage and the deed for

the second home.Matter VII

Respondent represented Client X in defense of a foreclosure action. On February 13, 2013, the master-in-equity issued an order in favor of the plaintiff. On February 22, 2013, plaintiff's counsel serv ed respondent with a copy of the order by mail, fax, and email. On April 9, 2013, respondent filed a notice of appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals cl aiming he had "never received written notice" of the order. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the notice of appeal was not timely. Respondent did not file a return.

When respondent was placed on interim suspension on August 13, 2013, the Supreme Court advised him in writing of hi s obligations to comply with Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, which included notifying his clients and opposing counsel in pending matters of his susp ension. On August 28, 2013, respondent sent a written notice of his suspension to Client X; he did not advise them of the status of the appeal. Respondent receive d no response from C lient X and he was not contacted by substitute counsel. Res pondent failed to notify the Court of Appeals of his suspension or formally mo ve to withdraw from representation after ten days as required by Rule 30.

On October 9, 2013, the Court of Appeal s dismissed Client X's appeal and, on October 20, 2013, the Court of Appeals sent the remittitur. Client X learned their appeal was dismissed when they received notice of the sale of their home.

Law

Respondent admits that by his conduct he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (lawyer shall provide competent representation); Rule 1.2 (lawyer shall abide by client's decisions concerning objectives of representa tion and shall consult with client as to means by which they are pursued); Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing client ); Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall keep client reasonably informed about status of matter) ; Rule 1.5 (lawyer shall not charge or collect unreasonable fee; scope of repres entation and basis or rate of fee and expenses for which client will be respons ible shall be communicated to client, preferably in writing); Rule 1.15 (lawyer sh all safekeep client funds; lawyer shall deposit into client trust account unearned le gal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the la wyer only as fees are earned or expensesincurred; lawyer shall not disburse funds from an account containing funds of more than one client or third person unless fund s to be disbursed have been deposited in account and are collected); Rule 1.16 (law yer shall comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of tribunal when terminating representation; upon termination of representation, lawyer shall take steps to protect client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to th e client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering pa pers and property to whic h client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense not been earned or incurred); Rule 3.2 (lawyer shall make reasonable e fforts to expedite litigation consistent with interests of client); Rule 4.1 (in connection with representation of client, lawyer shall not knowingly make false statem ent of material fact to third persons); Rule 8.4(b) (it is professi onal misconduct for lawyer to commit criminal act that reflects adversely on lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects); Rule 8.4 (d) (it is profe ssional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fr aud, deceit or misrepresent ation); and Rule 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent further admits he has violated the recordkeeping provisions of Rule 417, SCAC R. In addition, respondent admits he did not comply with Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

Respondent also admits he has violated the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct or any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding professional c onduct of lawyers); Rule 7(a)(5) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to e ngage in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the c ourts or the legal profession into disrepute or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to pr actice law); Rule 7(a)(6) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to viol ate oath of office taken upon admission); and Rule 7(a)(9) (it shall be ground for di scipline for lawyer to willfully fail to comply with terms of finally accepte d agreement for discipline by consent).

Conclusion

We accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and disbar respondent from the practice of law in this state. The di sbarment shall not be imposed retroactively to the date of respondent's interim suspen sion. The disbarment is subject to the following conditions:

1. within one (1) year of the date of this opinion, respondent shall pay

restitution to clients or on behalf of clients as specified in Appendix A;2. within two (2) years of the date of this opinion, respondent shall pay restitution as specified in Appendix B;

3. within three (3) years of the date of this opinion, respondent shall reimburse all funds paid to clients or third parties by the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection;

4. within three (3) years 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; and

5. respondent shall complete the Sout h Carolina Bar's Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School, Trus t Account School, and Law Office Management School prior to fili ng any petition for readmission.

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.

DISBARRED.

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

concur.

Appendix A

Client or Other Party Amount Owed/Explanation

Client AA $309.40 refund of owner's title

insurance premium

South Carolina Federal Credit Union $74,596.31 plus interest and penalties to satisfy Client N's mortgage (minus payments made by Client N after closing)

Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection $1,110.00 overpayment of

Client C closingClient D $201.00 refund of title

insurance premium

Client F attorney's fees for defense of

foreclosure action

Bank of America/Green Tree $100,824.12 plus penalties, Servicing, LLC interest, and attorney's fees related to payoff of Client F's
mortgage

Client H refund of attorney's fees; refund of recording fees, taxes, and hazard insurance premium if not already paid

Wells Fargo (or successor in interest ) $39,056.33 plus interest for Client H closing if not already paid

Client I $100 refund for title insurance premium

Client N $16.00 to record mortgage; $560.00 refund of attorney's fees; $2,308.26 for mortgage payments and late fees paid

after closing

Client O $25.00 to record mortgage; $660.00 refund of attorney's

fees

Citimortgage Inc. (or successor in inte rest) $37,426.60 plus interest and penalties to satisfy Client O's
mortgage

Client Q $51,810.00 plus interestClient R $3,000.00 refund of attorney's

fees

Client T $2,500.00 refund of attorney's

fees

Client U $2,500.00 refund of attorney's

fees

Client V $2,825.00 refund of attorney's

fees

Mr. W $2,500.00 refund of attorney's

fees

Appendix B

Client or Other Party Amount Owed/Explanation

Chicago Title Company attorney's fees, claims paid,

and costs related to issuance

of unauthorized title

commitments and title insurance policies

Network Funding L.P. $957.60 for title insurance -

Client AA closing

South Carolina Federal Credit Unio n $747.10 refund for title

insurance

- Client C closing

South Carolina Federal Credit Union $478.30 refund for title

insurance

- Client D closing

South Carolina Federal Credit Unio n $231.00 refund for title

insurance

- Client E closing

South Carolina Federal Credit Union attorney's fees for defense of

foreclosure action - Client FSouth Carolina Federal Credit Unio n

South Carolina Federal Credit Unio n

South Carolina Federal Credit Union

South Carolina Federal Credit Union

South Carolina Federal Credit Un ion

South Carolina Federal Credit Unio n

South Carolina Federal Credit Unio n

South Carolina Federal Credit Union

South Carolina Federal Credit Unio n

South Carolina Federal Credit Union

First Federal Bank

Network Funding L.P.

First Reliance Bank $713.00 refund for title insurance - Client G closing

$385.00 refund for title insurance - Client J closing

$349.00 refund for title insurance - Client K closing

$543.40 refund for title insurance - Client N closing

$ 1,087.30 refund for title insurance - Client P closing

$467.80 refund for title insurance - Client FF closing

$430.00 refund for title insurance - Client BB closing

$931.10 refund for title insurance - Client CC closing

$437.00 refund for title insurance - Client DD closing

$488.00 refund for title insurance - Client EE closing

$407.00 refund for title insurance - Client H closing

$833.20 refund for title insurance - Client I closing

$280.00 refund for title

insurance - Client L and Client M closingCitimortgage Inc. (or successor in in terest) $ 37,426.60 plus interest and penalties to satisfy Client O's mortgage

Southcoast Community Bank $295.00 refund for title Insurance - Client O closing