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 

Submitted October 31, 2016 – Filed November 16, 2016 

PUBLIC REPRIMAND 

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and William 

C. Campbell, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of 

Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Gerald Malloy, Malloy Law 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 Disciplinary 

Counsel and respondent 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 confidential admonition or public reprimand. We accept the 

Agreement and issue a public reprimand. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, 

are as follows. 

Facts and Law 

Respondent and client met on June 20, 2010, regarding a criminal charge of rape 

and a potential civil claim against client's former paramour. Respondent was not 

retained at that time. On August 6, 2010, client filed a report of her paramour's 

actions with the police department. On August 23, 2011, client's paramour pled 
nolo contendere to the charge of Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated 

Nature and was sentenced to thirty (30) days of weekend incarceration, 500 hours 

of community service, and three (3) years' probation. Client subsequently retained 

respondent, who filed a civil suit against client's paramour on December 21, 2011. 

The case proceeded with discovery and negotiations. 

Respondent began a sexual relationship with client in mid-September 2013. 

Respondent ended the sexual relationship in January 2014. According to 

respondent, the sexual relationship did not interfere with his handling of the civil 

case but was an act of very poor judgment. Respondent discovered the paramour 

had a number of judgments against him and very few unencumbered assets. 

Respondent notified client sometime after March 2014 that a substantial settlement 

of the civil case was not likely, but he continued to work on the case, setting a 

deposition for July 7, 2014. On July 2, 2014, another attorney told respondent on 

behalf of client that respondent's services were terminated. The attorney also told 

respondent to notify his malpractice carrier of a potential lawsuit alleging the 

sexual relationship had affected respondent's handling of the civil case. A courier 

for client retrieved client's file from respondent on July 30, 2014. Respondent 

reported these events to Disciplinary Counsel, and a few days later, another 

attorney filed a complaint with Disciplinary Counsel. 

Respondent admits his conduct violated Rule 1.8(m) of the Rules of Professional 

Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR (a lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client 

when the client is in a vulnerable condition or is otherwise subject to the control or 

undue influence of the lawyer, when such relations could have a harmful or 

prejudicial effect upon the interests of the client, or when sexual relations might 

adversely affect the lawyer's representation of the client). Respondent admits this 

violation constitutes grounds for discipline under Rule 7(a) of the Rules for 

Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR. 

Conclusion 

We find respondent's misconduct warrants a public reprimand. Accordingly, we 

accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct. 

PUBLIC REPRIMAND. 

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