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, Disciplinary 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 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. Respondent requests 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 (2013). 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 and Title Insurance Policies 

Matter I 

Respondent's law practice included conducting residential real estate loan closings. 

In 2007, Chicago Title Company (Chicago Title) canceled respondent's title 

agency. From that point, respondent had approved attorney status and issued title 

commitments and polices through the title agency of his father who is a lawyer. In 

2011, when Chicago Title learned of irregularities in some of respondent's 

closings, it canceled respondent's approved attorney status. From 2011 until his 

interim suspension in 2013, respondent continued 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 also collected funds for the purpose of paying 

title insurance premiums, which he never paid. Respondent's misconduct left 

lenders and owners without title insurance and some lenders and owners sustained 

losses as a result of respondent's misappropriation of funds. 

In addition to the matters set forth in Part B below, respondent collected money 

for title insurance that he did not properly pay to Chicago Title in closings for 

Client AA, Client BB, Client CC, Client DD, Client EE, and Client FF. 

Matter II 

Respondent's law firm was licensed as a title agency by Commonwealth 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 canceled 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 Commonwealth. At the closings, respondent 

collected funds for the purposes of paying title insurance premiums which he did 

not pay. In June 2013, a lender contacted Commonwealth with a demand for final 
title policies. After several emails from Commonwealth, respondent delivered the 

premiums and Commonwealth issued the policies. 

B. Misappropriation of Funds from Trust 

Matter I 

Sometime in December 2012, respondent disbursed funds in connection with a real 

estate closing prior to receipt of loan proceeds. Ultimately, the loan did not fund. 

For the next three and a half years, respondent engaged in a pattern of paying off 

his clients' existing mortgages with proceeds from subsequent, unrelated closings. 

Because respondent failed to maintain records of financial transactions required by 

Rule 417, SCACR, ODC is unable to determine the extent of the misappropriation, 

except as set forth below. 

Matter II 

On February 23, 2012, respondent 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 premiums on February 17, 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. The check payable to the law firm included $803.00 for lender's title 

insurance, however, respondent did not issue a title policy. Commonwealth issued 

a policy upon receipt of payment from respondent in June 2013. 

Matter III 

On February 24, 2012, respondent 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. However, respondent had already negotiated 

a check payable to his law firm in the amount 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. The check payable to 

the law firm included $551.00 for lender's title insurance, however, respondent did 
 

not 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 refinance transaction for 

Client C. On August 10, 2012, the lender wired the loan proceeds into 

respondent's trust account. However, respondent had already 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 determine whether or not respondent properly 

disbursed the remainder of the funds. The check payable to the law firm included 

$747.10 for lender's title insurance, however, 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 attributed 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 already negotiated a check payable 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 Receiver upon his interim suspension were 

insufficient to determine whether or not respondent properly disbursed the 

remainder of the funds. The check payable to the law firm included $679.30 for 

lender's title insurance, however, respondent did not issue a title policy. 

Matter VI 

On September 12, 2012, respondent 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 proceeds into respondent's trust account on 
September 14, 2012. However, 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 three weeks 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. The check payable to the law firm included 

$231.00 for lender's title insurance, however, respondent did not issue a title 

policy. 

Matter VII 

Respondent was retained to conduct a home mortgage loan closing for Client F. 

The closing was conducted on October 17, 2012. The lender 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 included $442.60 for title insurance. At the 

time respondent negotiated this check, funds had not been deposited into his trust 

account or otherwise received 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 negotiate the proceeds check, 

however, respondent failed to issue the payoff of the existing mortgage of 

$100,824.12. In response to inquiries about 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 approximately forty-nine occasions between 

December 31, 2012, and August 12, 2013, the date of respondent's interim 

suspension. Following his interim suspension, there were insufficient funds in 

respondent's trust accounts to cover the payoff of Client F's existing loan. As a 

result of respondent's misappropriation 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, respondent 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 negotiated a check payable to 

his law firm in the amount of $1,263.50 for attorney's fees and title insurance 
premiums on September 19, 2012, more than one month 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. 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 conducted 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 obtain title insurance. The financial and 

file records respondent delivered to the Receiver upon his interim suspension were 

not sufficient to determine what disbursements 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 already negotiated a check payable to his law 

firm in the amount of $1,393.20 for attorney's fees and title insurance premiums on 

January 14, 2013, the day before closing and receipt of funds. The check payable 

to the law firm included $833.20 for lender's title insurance and $100.00 for 

owner's title insurance, however, respondent did not issue a title policy for the 

lender or the client. Respondent 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 proceeds 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 closing and receipt of funds. The financial 

records respondent delivered to the Receiver upon his interim suspensions were 

insufficient to determine whether or not respondent properly disbursed the 

remainder of the funds. The check payable to the law firm included $385.00 for 

lender's title insurance, however respondent did not issue a title policy. 
Matter XII 

On February 15, 2013, respondent 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, approximately 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 conducted a second mortgage closing for 

borrowers Client L and Client M. The 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 premiums 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, however, respondent did not issue a title 

policy for the lender or the clients. 

Matter XIV 

Respondent was scheduled to conduct a closing 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 mortgage and the new mortgage) were all 

from the same lender. Disbursements that were to be made 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 costs, $16.00 to record the mortgage, 

$10,663.80 to Client N as excess cash, $560.00 to respondent for fees and costs, 

and $543.40 for title insurance. 

Respondent issued a trust account check payable 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 negotiated this check, funds had not been 

deposited into his trust account or otherwise received for this purpose. 

Respondent conducted the closing as scheduled. On February 26, 2013, 

respondent received $154,000.00 into his trust account by wire from the lender to 

fund the closing. Respondent properly disbursed the payoff of the second 
mortgage and excess funds to close. He did not deliver the funds to the lender to 

pay off the first mortgage. The balance in respondent's trust account dropped 

below the amount necessary to cover that payoff on approximately twenty-six 

occasions between April 1, 2013, and August 12, 2013, the date of respondent's 

interim suspension. Respondent did not deliver 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 payoff of Client N's existing first mortgage. 

Respondent did not obtain title insurance as agreed. 

In April 2013, Client N contacted respondent upon discovering that their lender 

was continuing to draw monthly payments from their bank account for the old first 

mortgage. Respondent falsely informed Client N that he had paid off the mortgage 

and they would receive a refund of the extra payments. In June 2013, Client N 

again contacted respondent because payments were still being drafted from their 

bank account. In reliance on respondent's assurances that the problem was 

resolved and the drafts were improper, Client 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 mortgage 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 insurance, $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 payable 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 received for this purpose. 

Loan proceeds related to the closing were wired into respondent's trust account on 

May 15, 2013. Before disbursement at the 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 eight 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 lender. Respondent did not record the new 

mortgage. Respondent did not obtain 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 proceeds into respondent's trust account. 

However, on May 2, 2013, a month before closing and receipt of funds, respondent 

had already negotiated a check 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 Intermediary, an LLC established by his wife for 

this purpose.1

 On July 18, 2013, one and one-half months after notice of the first 

grievance was sent to respondent, respondent withdrew $51,810.00 from the 1031 

exchange account and deposited 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 did 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 ongoing dispute, enclosed a check for attorney's fees in 

the amount of $3,000.00, and requested that respondent "start litigation" on their 

behalf. Respondent did not reduce his fee arrangement regarding the timeshare 

litigation to writing, nor did he prepare any billing statements or time records. 

After receipt of the retainer, Client R continued to gather relevant information and 

documentation and submitted it to respondent. Respondent did not conduct any 

investigation, research, or settlement negotiations. 

In June 2010, Mrs. R filed a disciplinary 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 suit, 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 otherwise 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 lawsuit 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 timeshare litigation to resolve the first 

disciplinary complaint filed by Mrs. R. Pursuant to the terms of that agreement, 

the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) issued a confidential 

admonition on the condition respondent complete the South Carolina Bar's Legal 

Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School 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 and 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 Appeals. The Clerk's Office sent letters to 

respondent on November 7, 2011, December 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 had done so. On February 12, 2012, opposing 

counsel served respondent with a letter addressed 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 dismissing Client S's appeal for failure to 

order the transcript. Respondent did not file a petition to reinstate the appeal and 

the Clerk of Court issued a remittitur. 

Respondent believed his representation of Client S was limited to defending the 

lawsuit and he only filed the notice of appeal to preserve his clients' rights; 

however, his written fee agreement contained no such limitation. Respondent 

admits that it was his responsibility to ensure that his written fee agreement 

specifically set forth the scope of his representation. Further, he admits that he was 

required to take steps to secure the transcript, comply with court rules, and 

formerly withdraw from the case. 

Matter III 

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

"short sale" and conduct a closing on her property. On several occasions 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 short sale and negotiating terms with the 

lender. After no progress on the matter, Client T contacted her lender in February 

2010 and was informed respondent had not contacted the lender about the matter at 

all. Client T made multiple written demands for the refund of her retainer but 

respondent did not comply. 

Matter IV 

On August 7, 2009, Client U paid a retainer of $2,500.00 to respondent for 

representation in negotiating a modification of his home mortgage loan. The 

written fee agreement specifically limited the scope of the representation to 

negotiations with the lender and filing an answer in the event of foreclosure. The 

fee agreement called for payment of additional fees if Client U wished to retain 

respondent for court hearings and contested matters. For six months, respondent 

took no action on behalf of Client U. In October 2009, January 2010, and 

February 2010, Mr. U received correspondence from his lender attempting to 

obtain information for consideration of a loan modification. Client U forwarded 
these letters to respondent. On February 5, 2010, respondent 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 counterclaim 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 received from his lender. That notice 

advised Client U that he had thirty days to voluntary elect to participate in 

foreclosure intervention. Respondent did 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 foreclosure 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 foreclosure hearing after notice to respondent as 

counsel of record for Client U and his wife. Respondent did not attend because 

Client U did not pay him any additional 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 opposing 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 entering 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 Client V's deceased grandfather'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 quiet 
 

title action. On April 2011, Client V wrote 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 heirs, respondent took 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 move to withdraw as counsel in this 

matter. 

Matter VI 

On December 7, 2009, respondent 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 mortgage company. In the written fee 

agreement, respondent agreed to obtain satisfaction 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 the mortgage." 

In February 2011, respondent conducted a closing on a second home purchased by 

Client W. Respondent did not provide the clients with their deed. On September 1, 

2011, after multiple phone calls, Mr. W sent 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 neither made a demand 

through any state administrative processes nor filed a civil action on Client W's 

behalf. 

After respondent's interim suspension in August 2013, Mr. W retained the services 

of new counsel who obtained the satisfaction 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 served 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 claiming 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 his obligations to comply with Rule 30, 

RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, which included notifying his clients and opposing 

counsel in pending matters of his suspension. 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 received no response from Client X and he was 

not contacted by substitute counsel. Respondent failed to notify the Court of 

Appeals of his suspension or formally move to withdraw from representation after 

ten days as required by Rule 30. 

On October 9, 2013, the Court of Appeals 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 representation 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 representation and basis or rate of fee and 

expenses for which client will be responsible shall be communicated to client, 

preferably in writing); Rule 1.15 (lawyer shall safekeep client funds; lawyer shall 

deposit into client trust account unearned legal fees and expenses that have been 

paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses 
incurred; lawyer shall not disburse funds from an account containing funds of more 

than one client or third person unless funds to be disbursed have been deposited in 

account and are collected); Rule 1.16 (lawyer 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 the client, allowing time for employment of 

other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which client is entitled and 

refunding any advance payment of fee or expense not been earned or incurred); 

Rule 3.2 (lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent 

with interests of client); Rule 4.1 (in connection with representation of client, 

lawyer shall not knowingly make false statement of material fact to third persons); 

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 a lawyer in 

other respects); 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 that is prejudicial to 

the administration of justice). Respondent further admits he has violated the 

recordkeeping provisions of Rule 417, SCACR. 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 conduct of lawyers); Rule 7(a)(5) (it shall 

be ground for discipline for lawyer to engage in conduct tending to pollute the 

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

or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law); Rule 7(a)(6) (it shall be 

ground for discipline for lawyer to violate oath of office taken upon admission); 

and Rule 7(a)(9) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to willfully fail to 

comply with terms of finally accepted 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 disbarment shall not be imposed retroactively 

to the date of respondent's interim suspension. 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 South Carolina Bar's Legal Ethics and 

Practice Program Ethics School, Trust Account School, and Law Office 

Management School prior to filing any petition for readmission. 

 

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. 

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 closing 
Client 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 interest) $37,426.60 plus interest and 

 penalties to satisfy Client O's 

 mortgage 

Client Q $51,810.00 plus interest 
Client 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 Union $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 Union $231.00 refund for title 

 insurance - Client E closing 

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

 foreclosure action - Client F 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina Federal Credit Union 

South Carolina Federal Credit Union 

South Carolina Federal Credit Union 

South Carolina Federal Credit Union 

South Carolina Federal Credit Union 

South Carolina Federal Credit Union 

South Carolina Federal Credit Union 

South Carolina Federal Credit Union 

South Carolina Federal Credit Union 

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 closing 
 

 

 

 

Citimortgage Inc. (or successor in interest) $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