### 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 mis conduct 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, failin g to record deeds and other original documents, and failing to respond to inquiries b y the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC). ODC filed formal charges against R espondent, which resulted in a hearing befo re a panel of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Panel). The Panel recomme nded that Respondent be disbarre d, 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 wa s placed on interim suspensi on by Order of

this Court. In re Warren , 406 S.C. 483, 752 S.E.2d 548 (2013). The current proceedings arise from four sep arate complaints. Respondent fa iled to answer the formal charges, and by failing to answer, Respondent thus admit ted 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 misappr opriated $171,392 from three t rust accounts for which he served as trustee, using the stolen funds to ope rate 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 benefic iaries 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 pe rform the services promised or reimburse fees for work not completed. Following Respondent's interim suspension, the attorney appointed to protect Respondent's c lients' interests reported being unable to find any operating account or trust account for Respondent's law pra ctice 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 pla nning and

1 In November 2012, Respondent signed a settlement agreement pro mising to repay the stolen funds plus 8% interest, along with three confe ssions of judgment,

which were to be filed in the e vent Respondent failed to make payments under the agreed-upon repayment plan set f orth in the settlement agreemen t. Respondent failed to make payments, and the confessions of judgment were filed in July 2013.corporate work for a client; how ever, Respondent mishandled the estate plan and allowed the client's corporate r egistration to lapse for seven years, resulting in forfeiture of the client's corpor ate charter and the client inc urring $1,700 in penalties and more tha n $13,000 in attorney's fees paid to diff erent counsel to reinstate the corporate charter and correct the client's estate plan.

D. Failure to Safeguard Funds

Respondent prepared a will for a cl ient, and after the client's passing, $18,000 cash was found in the client's home and delivered to Respondent to h old 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 sus pension, a review of client f iles revealed Respondent's possession of numerous original documents (primari ly deeds conveying real property into liv ing trusts, some several years old) that had not been filed by Respondent, despite Responde nt having been paid fees t o do so.

F. Failure to Respond

Respondent failed to respond to several investigative inquiries by ODC, including follow-up letters pursuant to In re Treacy 2 advising him to file a written response.

II.

In light of the nature and ex tent of Respondent's misconduct, t he Panel recommended Respondent be disbarred. The Panel further recomme nded Respondent be ordered to pay res titution in the amount of $244,772.22 and the costs of these proceedings. R espondent took no exception to th e Panel report.

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

This Court "may accept, reject, o r modify in whole or in part t he findings, conclusions[,] and recommendations of the Commission [on Lawyer Conduct]." Rule 27(e)(2), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. "The Rules of Profession al 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, S CACR. "This Court has never regarded financial m isconduct lightly, particularly w hen such misconduct concerns expenditure of client funds or other improp er 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 pro fession for the protection of the courts and th e 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. A t oral argument before this Court, Respondent requested t hat his "license be taken." 3 Because of the prevalent nature of Respondent's theft and wrongdoing, we find Respondent committed misconduct in the resp ects identified by the Panel. Thus, we find Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct , Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (competence); Ru le 1.2(a) (consult with client) ; Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 (communica tion); Rule 1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee); Rule 1.5(b) (communicate basis fo r fee); Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property); Rule 8.1(b) (failure to respond to a l awful demand for information f rom a disciplinary authority); Rule 8.4(a) (misc onduct); 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 misr epresentation); and Rule 8.4( e) (conduct prejudicial to the administrati on of justice). We also find Re spondent's misconduct constitutes grounds for discipl ine under the following Rules fo r Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (violat ion of the Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 7 (a)(3) (knowing failure to resp ond to a lawful

3 On the eve of oral argument, R espondent requested permission t o surrender his law license upon the condition that he be permitted to seek rea dmission 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 inste ad to be

disbarred.demand from a disciplinary author ity); Rule 7(a)(5) (engaging i n conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice and to bring the court s and the legal profession into disrepute or dem onstrating an unfitness to prac tice law); and Rule 7(a)(6) (violation of t he Lawyer's Oath).

We concur with the Panel's rec ommendation of disbarment. See, e.g.

, In re Jones

, 413 S.C. 29, 774 S.E. 2d 467 (2015) (disbarri ng attorney for mis appropriating client funds and failing to c ommunicate 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 misa ppropriating client funds, failing to diligently pursue client matters, failing to commu nicate with clients, writing tr ust account checks

that were returned for insuff icient funds, and failing to coope rate 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 approximat ely $70,000 in estate funds, failing to maintain separate trust and operating accounts, and providing false information to his client in an attempt to conc eal 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 S tatement, 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 pervasi ve misconduct, Respondent is he reby disbarred,

retroactive to the date of his i nterim suspension. Within sixty days of the date of this opinion, Respondent shall en ter into a monthly payment pla n with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct to p ay restitution in the amount o f $ 244,722.22

. Additionally, Respondent is ordere d to pay the costs of these p roceedings within sixty days of the date of this opinion. Further, within fiftee n days of the date of this opinion, Respondent shall surrender his Certificate of Adm ission to thePractice of Law and sha ll file an affidavit with the Clerk of C ourt showing he has complied with Rule 30, R LDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

DISBARRED.

PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTRED GE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur.