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, Disciplinary 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 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 

the imposition of a definite suspension ranging from nine (9) months to three (3) 

years or disbarment. He requests that any 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 investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC 

and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) within thirty (30) days 

of the imposition of discipline and to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice 

Program Ethics School and Trust Account School prior to reinstatement. Further, 

within sixty (60) days of the imposition of discipline, respondent agrees to enter 

into a restitution agreement with the Commission 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 his 
interim 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 his 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 release for Complainant A's signature 

discharging respondent from representation. The release also stated respondent 

had incurred $313.05 in expenses, the defendant had offered to settle the case for 

$23,000, and that respondent asserted 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 following notation: "With reservations and 

after Disciplinary Counsel Review Board." 

Complainant A and his wife later settled the case with the defendant 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. Respondent 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 criminal charges were dismissed with leave 

to re-indict by the solicitor's office. 

After the employer's insurance company covered the stolen funds, it attempted to 

recover the amount it paid to the employer from Complainant B. Some of the 

efforts to recover the funds 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 court 
in March of 2007. On May 27, 2008, respondent 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 state court. On August 25, 2008, the case 

was removed to federal court. On June 8, 2009, defendant 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 court 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 court shortly after the June 29, 2009, 

deadline. Respondent did not notify Complainant 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 ordered 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 Court had drawn the deficiency to respondent's 

attention three times and respondent had ignored the requests to cure. Ultimately, 

respondent acknowledged and corrected his filing 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 that Complainant B had not filed her suit 

within the statute of limitations and the 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 Complainant B's best interest. 

Matter III 

Respondent represented Complainant C in a personal injury matter. Respondent 

received a settlement of $101,000 in the case. Respondent deposited the entire 

settlement amount into his operating account. Pursuant to the written fee 

agreement, respondent should have received $33,633.00 (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 operating 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. Respondent failed to 

safeguard the additional fees 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. Respondent advised ODC he did not have the 

trust account records demanded by the subpoena. 

Respondent admits he does not maintain a client trust account. He further admits 

that he deposited and disbursed client settlement funds into and out of his operating 

account. Respondent also conducted his personal and office business through this 

same operating account. 

Matter IV 

Respondent represented Complainants D against an insurance carrier concerning 

personal injuries sustained by them in an automobile accident. The carrier offered 

a settlement which was accepted by Complainants D. The carrier issued a check 

payable to respondent's firm and Complainants D on June 23, 2010, and requested 

an executed release be returned to the 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 and requesting a response within fifteen 

days. When respondent failed to respond within the fifteen days, ODC sent 

respondent a letter by certified mail on January 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 his response to ODC by letter dated 

January 28, 2011. Respondent also returned the executed release to the insurance 

carrier in January 2011. 

Matter V 
Respondent requested a copy of a deposition transcript and copies of exhibits from 

two other depositions from a court reporting agency. These items were delivered 

as requested on January 21, 2010. Respondent failed to pay the invoice for these 

services until January of 2011, after ODC initiated 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 occasions. The transcripts of the depositions 

were hand-delivered to respondent and his partner, along with an invoice for each 

transcript. Respondent and his law partner failed to pay the invoices despite 

telephone calls and other communication from the court reporting agency 

regarding payment. The court reporting agency obtained a judgment against 

respondent and his law partner in the amount of $4,120.69 which represented the 

amount due for the outstanding invoices plus interest and court costs. Out of the 

total invoiced amount, respondent's invoiced share was $801.58. 

Matter VII 

Respondent was retained to represent Complainant E in a workers compensation 

matter. In connection with the representation, respondent also agreed to assist 

Complainant E in filing for social security benefits; respondent was not paid 

separately for his representation in the 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 was approved for benefits. 

On February 25, 2014, ODC 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 respondent failed to respond by the extended 

deadline, ODC sent respondent a letter by certified mail on April 4, 2014, 

reminding respondent of his obligation to respond and citing In the Matter of 

Treacy, Id. Respondent failed to submit a response. 

Matter VIII 

Respondent engaged a court reporter 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 the 
court 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 representation and consult with client as to 

means by which they are to be pursued); Rule 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 client's informed consent required; lawyer 

shall keep client reasonably informed about 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 have no substantial purpose other than to 

burden third person); Rule 8.1(b) (in connection with disciplinary matter, lawyer 

shall not fail to respond to lawful demand from disciplinary authority); Rule 8.4(d) 

(it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct involving 

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

misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to administration of 

justice). Further, respondent admits he failed to comply with Rule 417, SCACR. 

Respondent also admits his misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline pursuant 

to 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) 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 include request for response). 

Conclusion 

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

the practice of law in this state retroactively 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 date of this opinion, respondent shall enter 

into a restitution agreement with the Commission to repay his former client and 

third parties harmed as a result of his misconduct 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 reinstatement, respondent shall complete 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 Complainant 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.