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

In the Matter of David L. Savage, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2016-001529

Opinion No. 27678 Subm itted October 31, 2016 – Filed November 16, 2016

PUBLIC REPRIMAND

Lesley M. Coggiola, Discip linary Counsel, and William C. Campbell, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Gerald Malloy, Malloy La w Firm, of Hartsville, and William Angus McKinnon, McGowan Hood & Felder, LLC, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Office of Disciplina ry Counsel and respondent have entered into an Agreement for Disci pline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Discipl inary 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 confidential ad monition or public reprimand. We accept the Agreement and issue a public rep rimand. The facts, as set fort h in the Agreement, are as follows.

Facts and Law

Respondent and client met on June 20, 2010, regarding a crimina l charge of rape and a potential civil claim agai nst client's former paramour. Respondent was not retained at that time. On August 6, 2010, client filed a repor t of her paramour's actions with the police depart ment. On August 23, 2011, client 's paramour plednolo contendere to the charge of Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature and was sentenced to thir ty (30) days of weekend incarce ration, 500 hours of community service, and three (3) years' probation. Client s ubsequently retained respondent, who filed a civil suit against client's paramour on December 21, 2011. The case proceeded with dis covery and negotiations.

Respondent began a sexual relations hip with client in mid-Septe mber 2013. Respondent ended the sexual relationship in January 2014. Acco rding to respondent, the sexual relationshi p did not interfere with his handling of the civil case but was an act of very poo r judgment. Respondent discover ed the paramour had a number of judgments agains t him and very f ew unencumbered assets. Respondent notified client somet ime after March 2014 that a substantial settlement of the civil case was not likely, but he continued to work on t he case, setting a deposition for July 7, 2014. On J uly 2, 2014, another attorney told respondent on behalf of client that respondent 's services were terminated. T he attorney also told respondent to notify his malprac tice carrier of a potential law suit alleging the sexual relationship ha d affected respondent's handling of the c ivil case. A courier for client retrieved client's f ile from respondent on July 30, 2014. Respondent reported these events to Discip linary Counsel, and a few days l ater, another attorney filed a complaint with Disciplinary Counsel.

Respondent admits his conduct violat ed Rule 1.8(m) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR (a lawye r shall not have sexual relati ons with a client when the client is in a vulnera ble condition or is otherwise su bject to the control or undue influence of the lawyer, wh en such relations could have a harmful or prejudicial effect upon the intere sts of the client, or when se xual relations might adversely affect the lawyer's representation of the client). R espondent admits this violation constitutes grounds f or discipline under Rule 7(a) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcem ent, Rule 413, SCACR.

Conclusion

We find respondent's misconduc t warrants a public reprimand. A ccordingly, we accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

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