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

In the Matter of Paul Clarendon Ballou, Respondent

Appellate Case No. 2015-000959

Opinion No. 27535 Submitted June 9, 2015 – Filed June 24, 2015

DISBARRED

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplin ary Counsel, and Ericka M. Williams, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Paul Clarendon Ballou, of Columbia, pro se

.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have ente red 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 the imposition of a definite suspension ranging from nine (9) months to three (3) years or disbarment. He requests that a ny suspension or disbarment be imposed retroactively to May 23, 2013, the date of his interim suspension. In the Matter of

Ballou , 403 S.C. 138, 742 S.E.2d 868 (2013). In addition, respondent agrees to pay the costs incurred in the investigatio n and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Co mmission) within thirty (30) days of the imposition of discipline and to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and Trust Account Sc hool prior to reinstatement. Further, within sixty (60) days of the imposition of discipline, respondent agrees to enter into a restitution agreement with the Comm ission to repay clients and third parties

harmed as a result of his misconduct. We accept the Agreement and disbar respondent from the practice of law in this state retroactively to the date of hisinterim suspension, and, further, impose the conditions as set forth hereafter in this opinion. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

Facts

Matter I

Respondent represented Complainant A and hi s wife in a personal injury case. Subsequent to mediation, Client A became dissatisfied with respondent's representation, terminated respondent's services, and demanded his file. Respondent prepared a handwritten rele ase for Complainant A's signature discharging respondent from representation. The release also stated respondent had incurred $313.05 in expenses, the defe ndant had offered to settle the case for $23,000, and that respondent as serted an attorneys' fee lien in the amount of 25% or $5,750 payable out of any settlement of the case along with costs. Complainant A signed the document and added the followi ng notation: "With reservations and after Disciplinary Counsel Review Board."

Complainant A and his wife later settled the case with the de fendant insurance company. The insurance company sent a check to respondent in the amount of $5,750 payable to the order of respondent's firm, Complainant A, and Complainant A's wife. Respondent endorsed the check, signing the names of Complainant A

and his wife without their consent. Re spondent then deposited the check into his operating account.

Matter II

Respondent's firm represented Complainant B on criminal charges arising out of her employment; the employer alleged Complainant B had stolen funds from the employer. On November 17, 2006, the crim inal charges were dismissed with leave to re-indict by the solicitor's office.

After the employer's insurance company cove red the stolen funds, it attempted to recover the amount it paid to the employe r from Complainant B. Some of the

efforts to recover the f unds were allegedly made by a recovery management

company.

Thereafter, respondent represented Complainant B in a civil suit for damages allegedly suffered by Complainant B as a result of the collections efforts taken by or on behalf of the insurance company. Initially, respondent filed suit in state courtin March of 2007. On May 27, 2008, re spondent filed for a voluntary non-suit pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), SCRCP, because the complaint had not been served.

In July 2008, respondent filed suit in st ate court. On August 25, 2008, the case

was removed to federal cour t. On June 8, 2009, defe ndant Recovery Management Company moved to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction. On July 7, 2009, the court granted the motion to dismiss due to respondent's failure to respond. The court noted respondent had called the cour t on June 25 or 26, 2009 requesting an

extension of time and was advised that an extension would be granted if respondent filed the motion by June 29, 2009. The court did not receive the motion despite a follow-up call from the c ourt shortly after the June 29, 2009, deadline. Respondent did not notify Comp lainant B of this development.

On December18, 2009, the defendant insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 19, 2010 , respondent filed a response to the motion. On January 29, 2010, the court or dered respondent to show cause why the response should not be stricken for failure to cure a signatory deficiency. The

court's order noted that the Clerk of Cour t had drawn the deficiency to respondent's attention three times and respondent had i gnored the requests to cure. Ultimately, respondent acknowledged and corrected his f iling deficiency and assured the court

that he would avoid future difficulties by obtaining additional training in the efiling procedures used by the court. As a result, the court did not strike the

response.

On February 8, 2010, the trial court issued its order granting summary judgment to the defendant insurance company finding th at Complainant B had not filed her suit

within the statute of limitations and th e record lacked sufficient evidence to support the claims. Respondent was unaware of the order as he did not monitor his e-mail account properly. Respondent failed to timely inform Complainant B of the order granting summary judgement and failed to preserve Complainant B's appellate rights. Respondent made a unilateral decision not to pursue the case as respondent believed that this was in Co mplainant B's best interest.

Matter III

Respondent represented Complainant C in a personal injury ma tter. Respondent received a settlement of $101,000 in th e case. Respondent deposited the entire settlement amount into his operating ac count. Pursuant to the written fee agreement, respondent should have received $33,6 33.00 (1/3%) as attorneys' fees.Out of the $101,000 settlement, respondent disbursed $55,000 to the client and kept the remaining fees in his operati ng account. There was no written agreement between respondent and Complainant C regarding the withholding of any funds beyond the initial one third stated in the fee agreement. Res pondent failed to safeguard the additional f ees in his trust account.

On March 6, 2013, a subpoena for respondent's trust account records was issued and mailed to the address of record shown in the Attorney Information System. The subpoena was returned "unclaimed" to ODC. A subpoena dated April 17, 2013, was served by a South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agent on respondent on the same day. The subpoena again requested respondent's trust account records by May 14, 2013. Responde nt advised ODC he did not have the trust account records demanded by the subpoena.

Respondent admits he does not maintain a cl ient trust account. He further admits that he deposited and disbursed client set tlement funds into and out of his operating account. Respondent also conducted his pe rsonal and office business through this same operating account.

Matter IV

Respondent represented Complainants D ag ainst an insurance carrier concerning personal injuries sustained by them in an automobile accident. The carrier offered a settlement which was accepted by Complain ants D. The carrier issued a check payable to respondent's firm and Compla inants D on June 23, 2010, and requested

an executed release be returned to th e carrier. Respondent and Complainants D endorsed and negotiated the check, but respondent did not return the executed

release to the carrier.

ODC initiated its investigation of this matter on November 5, 2010, by sending a Notice of Investigation to respondent a nd requesting a response within fifteen days. When respondent failed to res pond within the fifteen days, ODC sent respondent a letter by certified mail on Ja nuary 13, 2011, reminding respondent of his obligation to respond and citing In the Matter of Treacy , 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982). Respondent submitted hi s response to ODC by letter dated January 28, 2011. Respondent also return ed the executed release to the insurance carrier in January 2011.

Matter VRespondent requested a copy of a deposition tran script and copies of exhibits from two other depositions from a c ourt reporting agency. Th ese items were delivered as requested on January 21, 2010. Responde nt failed to pay the invoice for these services until January of 2011, after ODC initia ted its investigation into this matter.

Matter VI

Respondent and his law partner retained the services of a court reporter to attend and transcribe depositions on seven occasi ons. The transcripts of the depositions were hand-delivered to respondent and hi s partner, along with an invoice for each transcript. Respondent and his law partner failed to pay the invoices despite telephone calls and other communicati on from the court reporting agency regarding payment. The court reporting agency obtained a judgment against respondent and his law partner in the am ount of $ 4,120.69 which represented the amount due for the outstanding invoices plus interest and court costs. Out of the total invoiced amount, responden t's invoiced share was $801.58.

Matter VII

Respondent was retained to represent Co mplainant E in a workers compensation matter. In connection with the representa tion, respondent also agreed to assist Complainant E in filing for social security benefits; respondent was not paid separately for his representation in th e social security matter. The initial application for social security benefits was denied. Respondent did not timely file an appeal of the denial. Eventually, Complainant E refiled her application for social security benefits and wa s approved for benefits.

On February 25, 2014, OD C mailed respondent a Notice of Additional Allegations and requested a response within fifteen days. At respondent's request, a fifteen day extension was granted. When responde nt failed to respond by the extended deadline, ODC sent respondent a lett er by certified mail on April 4, 2014, reminding respondent of his obl igation to respond and citing In the Matter of Treacy

, Id . Respondent failed to submit a response.

Matter VIII

Respondent engaged a court re porter for services to be rendered on January 30, 2013. The transcript was delivered to respondent on or about February 12, 2013, along with the original invoice. Despite monthly invoices and contact from thecourt reporting agency, respondent failed to pay the original invoice of $383.90. With the late fee, respondent owes the court reporting agency $401.18.

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 represen tation and consult with client as to means by which they are to be pursued); Ru le 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing client); Rule 1.4 (lawyer shall promptly inform client of any decision in which cl ient's informed consent required; lawyer shall keep client reasonably informed a bout status of matter); Rule 1.15 (lawyer shall safekeep client funds; lawyer shall promptly deliver to client or third person any funds client or third person entitled to receive); Rule 4.4(a) (in representing client, lawyer shall not use means that ha ve no substantial purpose other than to burden third person); Rule 8.1(b) (in conn ection with disciplinary matter, lawyer shall not fail to respond to lawful demand from disciplinary authority); Rule 8.4(d) (it is professional misconduct for lawy er to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresent ation); Rule 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in c onduct prejudicial to administration of justice). Further, respondent admits he fa iled to comply with Rule 417, SCACR.

Respondent also admits his misconduct cons titutes grounds for discipline pursuant to the following Rules for Lawyer Discip linary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be ground for disc ipline for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct) and Rule 7(a)(3) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to willfully fail to comply with subpoena issued pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement or to knowingly fail to respond to lawful demand from disciplinary authority to incl ude request for response).

Conclusion

We accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and disbar respondent from the practice of law in this state retroactivel y to the date of his interim suspension. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall reimburse ODC and the Commission for costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Within sixty (60) days of the da te of this opinion, respondent shall enter into a restitution agreement with the Comm ission to repay his former client and third parties harmed as a result of his mi sconduct as follows: 1) Complainant C -$10,000; 2) the court reporting agency in Matter VI - $841.58; 3) the court reporting agency in Matter VIII - $401.18; and 4) the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Lawyers' Fund) - in full for any payments made on his behalf to any of the clients or third parties referenced in this opinion. 1 Before he shall be eligible to file a petition for reinstatem ent, respondent shall comple te the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and Trust Account School. 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.

1 The amount due from respondent to Comp lainant C and the two court reporting agencies shall be reduced by any payments made to Complainant C and the court reporting agencies by the Lawyers' Fund.