THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of William Franklin Warren, III, 

Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2015-002378 

Opinion No. 27643 

Heard May 17, 2016 – Filed June 29, 2016 

DISBARRED 

Disciplinary Counsel Lesley M. Coggiola and 

Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Barbara M. Seymour, for 

the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

William Franklin Warren, III, Respondent, pro se. 

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent William 

Franklin Warren, III, admits misconduct including, among other things, 

misappropriating over $171,392 held in various trusts for which he served as 

trustee, converting client funds for his personal use, failing to perform work for 

which he had been paid, failing to return unearned fees, failing to record deeds and 

other original documents, and failing to respond to inquiries by the Office of 

Disciplinary Counsel (ODC). ODC filed formal charges against Respondent, 

which resulted in a hearing before a panel of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct 

(the Panel). The Panel recommended that Respondent be disbarred, to which 

Respondent took no exception. In light of the egregious nature of Respondent's 

misconduct, we disbar Respondent. 
 

I. 

On December 18, 2013, Respondent was placed on interim suspension by Order of 

this Court. In re Warren, 406 S.C. 483, 752 S.E.2d 548 (2013). The current 

proceedings arise from four separate complaints. Respondent failed to answer the 

formal charges, and by failing to answer, Respondent thus admitted the allegations. 

Rule 24(a), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. The factual allegations in the formal 

charges are summarized below. 

A. 

Misappropriation of Client Funds 

Respondent mismanaged and misappropriated $171,392 from three trust accounts 

for which he served as trustee, using the stolen funds to operate his law firm and to 

support a lifestyle that he could not otherwise afford.1 We note Respondent is the 

uncle and godfather of the beneficiaries of the trusts from which he stole money. 

B. 

Failing to Perform Services 

In three different matters, Respondent undertook representation and accepted over 

$40,000 in fees, but failed to perform the services promised or reimburse fees for 

work not completed. Following Respondent's interim suspension, the attorney 

appointed to protect Respondent's clients' interests reported being unable to find 

any operating account or trust account for Respondent's law practice and that there 

were no funds available to reimburse any monies. 

C. 

Mishandling of Corporate and Estate Matters 

Respondent collected over $20,000 in fees to perform estate planning and 

 

1

 In November 2012, Respondent signed a settlement agreement promising to 

repay the stolen funds plus 8% interest, along with three confessions of judgment, 

which were to be filed in the event Respondent failed to make payments under the 

agreed-upon repayment plan set forth in the settlement agreement. Respondent 

failed to make payments, and the confessions of judgment were filed in July 2013. 
 

corporate work for a client; however, Respondent mishandled the estate plan and 

allowed the client's corporate registration to lapse for seven years, resulting in 

forfeiture of the client's corporate charter and the client incurring $1,700 in 

penalties and more than $13,000 in attorney's fees paid to different counsel to 

reinstate the corporate charter and correct the client's estate plan. 

 

D. 

Failure to Safeguard Funds 

Respondent prepared a will for a client, and after the client's passing, $18,000 cash 

was found in the client's home and delivered to Respondent to hold in trust. 

Respondent converted those funds, and none of the funds remained in trust at the 

time of Respondent's interim suspension. 

E. 

Failure to Record Original Documents 

Following Respondent's interim suspension, a review of client files revealed 

Respondent's possession of numerous original documents (primarily deeds 

conveying real property into living trusts, some several years old) that had not been 

filed by Respondent, despite Respondent having been paid fees to do so. 

F. 

Failure to Respond 

Respondent failed to respond to several investigative inquiries by ODC, including 

follow-up letters pursuant to In re Treacy2

 advising him to file a written response. 

II. 

In light of the nature and extent of Respondent's misconduct, the Panel 

recommended Respondent be disbarred. The Panel further recommended 

Respondent be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $244,772.22 and the 

costs of these proceedings. Respondent took no exception to the Panel report. 

 

2

 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982). 
 

III. 

This Court "may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, 

conclusions[,] and recommendations of the Commission [on Lawyer Conduct]." 

Rule 27(e)(2), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. "The Rules of Professional Conduct are 

rules of reason. They should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal 

representation and of the law itself." Scope, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. "This Court 

has never regarded financial misconduct lightly, particularly when such 

misconduct concerns expenditure of client funds or other improper use of trust 

funds." In re Johnson, 385 S.C. 501, 504, 685 S.E.2d 610, 611 (2009) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). As we have recognized, "[t]he primary purpose of 

disbarment . . . is the removal of an unfit person from the profession for the 

protection of the courts and the public, not punishment of the offending attorney." 

In re Burr, 267 S.C. 419, 423, 228 S.E.2d 678, 680 (1976). 

Respondent has admitted theft that has resulted in significant harm to his clients 

and failed to participate in the disciplinary investigation. At oral argument before 

this Court, Respondent requested that his "license be taken."3

 Because of the 

prevalent nature of Respondent's theft and wrongdoing, we find Respondent 

committed misconduct in the respects identified by the Panel. Thus, we find 

Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, 

SCACR: Rule 1.1 (competence); Rule 1.2(a) (consult with client); Rule 1.3 

(diligence); Rule 1.4 (communication); Rule 1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee); 

Rule 1.5(b) (communicate basis for fee); Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property); Rule 

8.1(b) (failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary 

authority); Rule 8.4(a) (misconduct); Rule 8.4(b) (criminal act); Rule 8.4 (c) 

(criminal act involving moral turpitude); Rule 8.4(d) (conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(e) (conduct 

prejudicial to the administration of justice). We also find Respondent's misconduct 

constitutes grounds for discipline under the following Rules for Lawyer 

Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (violation of the Rules 

of Professional Conduct); Rule 7(a)(3) (knowing failure to respond to a lawful 

3

 On the eve of oral argument, Respondent requested permission to surrender his 

law license upon the condition that he be permitted to seek readmission to the Bar 

in the future. However, during oral argument, when Respondent learned his 

proposed conditional resignation was not permitted under Rule 35, RLDE, Rule 

413, SCACR, he withdrew his resignation request and asked instead to be 

disbarred. 
 

demand from a disciplinary authority); Rule 7(a)(5) (engaging in conduct tending 

to pollute the administration of justice and to bring the courts and the legal 

profession into disrepute or demonstrating an unfitness to practice law); and Rule 

7(a)(6) (violation of the Lawyer's Oath). 

We concur with the Panel's recommendation of disbarment. See, e.g., In re Jones, 

413 S.C. 29, 774 S.E.2d 467 (2015) (disbarring attorney for misappropriating 

client funds and failing to communicate with clients); In re Lafaye, 399 S.C. 12, 

731 S.E.2d 282 (2012) (disbarring attorney for misappropriating client funds in 

two trust accounts); In re Crummey, 388 S.C. 286, 696 S.E.2d 589 (2010) 

(disbarring attorney for misappropriating client funds, failing to diligently pursue 

client matters, failing to communicate with clients, writing trust account checks 

that were returned for insufficient funds, and failing to cooperate with ODC); In re 

Williams, 376 S.C. 640, 659 S.E.2d 100 (2008) (disbarring attorney for 

misappropriating $400,000 of client assets and pleading guilty to one count of 

exploitation of a vulnerable adult); In re Cunningham, 371 S.C. 503, 640 S.E.2d 

461 (2007) (disbarring attorney for misappropriating approximately $70,000 in 

estate funds, failing to maintain separate trust and operating accounts, and 

providing false information to his client in an attempt to conceal his 

misappropriation of estate funds); In re Kennedy, 367 S.C. 355, 626 S.E.2d 341 

(2006) (disbarring attorney for falsifying a HUD-1 Settlement Statement, failing to 

remit loan proceeds, issuing a title insurance policy which included a forged 

signature and false certifications, misappropriating at least $280,000 in client 

funds, and pleading guilty to one count of mail fraud). 

IV. 

In light of Respondent's pervasive misconduct, Respondent is hereby disbarred, 

retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. Within sixty days of the date of 

this opinion, Respondent shall enter into a monthly payment plan with the 

Commission on Lawyer Conduct to pay restitution in the amount of $244,722.22. 

Additionally, Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings within 

sixty days of the date of this opinion. Further, within fifteen days of the date of 

this opinion, Respondent shall surrender his Certificate of Admission to the 
Practice of Law and shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing he has 

complied with Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. 

DISBARRED. 

PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur.