THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Bradley A. Norton 

Appellate Case No. 2020-001191 

Opinion No. 28014 

Submitted February 10, 2021 – Filed March 17, 2021 

DEFINITE SUSPENSION 

Disciplinary Counsel John S. Nichols and Deputy 

Disciplinary Counsel Carey Taylor Markel, both of 

Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Bradley A. Norton, of Walhalla, 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, consents to 

the imposition of any sanction contained in Rule 7(b), RLDE, and agrees to pay the 

costs incurred by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (Commission) in 

investigating and prosecuting this matter. We accept the Agreement and suspend 

Respondent from the practice of law in this state for one year. The facts, as set 

forth in the Agreement, are as follows. 

I. 

Matter A 

Respondent represented Client A from 1994 to 2007 in a personal injury matter 

arising out of an automobile accident. Respondent neglected the matter, failed to 
return phone calls from Client A, canceled client meetings, and failed to 

communicate with Client A. Respondent lacked competence in handling the 

personal injury matter and ultimately the trial court dismissed the litigation for 

failure to prosecute. Respondent admits his conduct violated the following Rules 

of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 

(communication); Rule 3.2 (reasonable efforts to expedite litigation); and Rule 

8.4(e) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). We find 

Respondent's conduct also violated Rule 1.1, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR 

(competence). 

Matter B 

Respondent represented Client B from 2005 to 2012 in a personal injury matter 

arising out of an automobile accident. Respondent neglected the matter, failed to 

return phone calls from Client B and the insurance carrier, failed to communicate, 

and failed to file a summons and complaint despite assurances to the client that he 

had done so. Respondent lacked competence in handling Client B's claim. After 

the initiation of these proceedings, Respondent compensated Client B for her 

damages. Respondent admits his conduct violated the following Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 

(communication); Rule 3.2 (reasonable efforts to expedite litigation); Rule 8.4(d) 

(conduct involving dishonesty); and Rule 8.4(e) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to 

the administration of justice). We find Respondent's conduct also violated Rule 

1.1, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (competence). 

Matter C 

Respondent represented Client C from 2007 to 2014 in a personal injury matter 

arising out of an automobile accident. For a period of seven years, when Client C 

would call to check on the status of her case, Respondent would assure Client C 

that he was waiting on a court date. In 2014, Client C learned that Respondent had 

never filed a lawsuit on her behalf because Respondent did not know where to file 

the suit. Respondent did not file a timely response to the Notice of Investigation in 

this matter, necessitating the issuance of a letter pursuant to In re Treacy, 277 S.C. 

514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982). Subsequent to the initiation of these proceedings, 

Respondent compensated Client C for her damages. Respondent admits his 

conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: 

Rule 1.1 (competence); Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 (communication); Rule 3.2 

(reasonable efforts to expedite litigation); Rule 8.1(b) (failure to respond to 
 

 

disciplinary inquiry); Rule 8.4(d) (conduct involving dishonesty); and Rule 8.4(e) 

(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). 

Matter D 

Respondent represented Client D from 2009 to 2015 in a personal injury matter 

arising out of an automobile accident. During the course of representation of 

Client D, Lawyer failed to return phone calls and failed to file appropriate 

paperwork with the trial court. Ultimately the case was dismissed pursuant to Rule 

40(j), SCRCP, in 2015 and not restored to the docket. Respondent did not file a 

timely response to the Notice of Investigation in this matter, necessitating the 

issuance of a letter pursuant to In re Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982). 

Respondent admits his conduct violated the following Rules of Professional 

Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (competence); Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 

(communication); Rule 3.2 (reasonable efforts to expedite litigation); Rule 8.1(b) 

(failure to respond to disciplinary inquiry); and Rule 8.4(e) (engaging in conduct 

prejudicial to the administration of justice). 

Matter E 

During the course of representation of a client in a personal injury matter, 

Respondent agreed to protect a subrogation claim. Upon settlement of the personal 

injury matter, Respondent failed to pay the subrogation claim. The subrogation 

vendor contacted Respondent repeatedly over the course of fifteen months after the 

settlement concerning payment of the subrogation claim. Respondent never 

responded to the subrogation vendor's attempts to obtain payment. After the 

initiation of these proceedings, Respondent paid the subrogation claim. 

Respondent admits his conduct violated the following Rules of Professional 

Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.15(e) (promptly distributing funds); Rule 

8.4(d) (conduct involving dishonesty); and Rule 8.4(e) (engaging in conduct 

prejudicial to the administration of justice). 

Matter F 

Respondent represented Client F in a family court matter. Client F had physical 

custody of her grand-niece and grand-nephew and wanted to obtain legal custody 

of them. Respondent advised Client F that adoption was preferable over legal 

custody because adoption would protect Client F's interests in providing a stable 

home environment for the children. After the temporary hearing, communications 
between Respondent and Client F broke down. Respondent was unsuccessful in 

securing the adoption for Client F. Respondent admits his conduct violated the 

following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 

(competence) and Rule 1.4 (communication). 

Matter G 

Respondent represented Client G from 2003 to 2014 in a personal injury action 

arising out of her injuries in an automobile accident. Client G was eleven years old 

at the time of the accident. Respondent filed an action for Client G on December 

31, 2009, the last day of the calendar year in which Client G turned eighteen years 

old. For the next approximately year and a half, Respondent failed to return phone 

calls to Client G or her father. On August 25, 2011, the trial court dismissed Client 

G's action for a failure to prosecute. On August 17, 2012, Respondent filed a 

motion to restore. After getting the case restored to the docket, Respondent took 

no further action on Client G's case. On August 26, 2015, the court again 

dismissed Client G's case for a failure to prosecute. On October 14, 2015, 

Respondent filed a second motion to restore Client G's case to the docket. On 

October 19, 2015, the case was restored to the docket. In 2017, the court granted 

summary judgment to the defendant because the statute of limitation in Client G's 

case had already expired when Respondent filed Client G's second motion to 

restore. Respondent admits his conduct violated the following Rules of 

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (competence); Rule 1.3 

(diligence); Rule 1.4 (communication); Rule 3.2 (reasonable efforts to expedite 

litigation); and Rule 8.4(e) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration 

of justice). 

II. 

Respondent admits his conduct constitutes grounds for discipline under the 

following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 

7(a)(1) (a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall be grounds for 

discipline) and Rule 7(a)(5) (conduct tending to pollute the administration of 

justice shall be grounds for discipline). 

We find Respondent's misconduct warrants a definite suspension from the practice 

of law in this state for one year. Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and 

suspend Respondent for a period of one year. Within thirty (30) days of the date of 

this opinion, Respondent shall pay or enter into a reasonable payment plan with the 
Commission to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this 

matter by ODC and the Commission. 

Additionally, we remind Respondent that, prior to seeking reinstatement, he must 

demonstrate his compliance with Rule 33, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR 

(reinstatement following a definite suspension of nine months or more), including 

completion of the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School within one 

year prior to filing a petition for reinstatement. 

Finally, within fifteen 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. 

DEFINITE SUSPENSION. 

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