THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of William Thomas Moody 

Appellate Case No. 2020-000171 

Opinion No. 27961 

Submitted March 11, 2020 – Filed April 8, 2020 

RESTITUTION ORDERED 

John S. Nichols, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sabrina C. 

Todd, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of 

Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

William Thomas Moody, of Pawleys Island, 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 (the Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.1 In the 

Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct, consents to an order imposing 

restitution, and consents to payment of the costs incurred in the investigation and 

prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the 

Commission). We accept the Agreement, order Respondent to pay $7,644.50 in 

restitution, and order Respondent to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and 

prosecution of this matter. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows: 

1

 The Court disbarred Respondent in 2014. In re Moody, 410 S.C. 334, 764 S.E.2d 519 (2014). 

The conduct in this matter occurred prior to his disbarment and was not the subject of 

Respondent's disbarment. 
 

 

Facts 

With the assistance of a previous attorney, Complainants L.B., V.B., and R.P. (the 

Complainants) filed a civil action against several defendants in connection with a 

residential building lot on which they hoped to build a home. In late 2010, 

Respondent began representing the Complainants in the matter and remained their 

counsel through trial in April 2013. 

When Respondent first began representing the Complainants, he accepted a $5,000 

deposit, which he placed in his firm's trust account. Over several months, 

Respondent issued invoices to the Complainants and paid these invoices from the 

Complainants' trust account funds. In the final two years of the representation, the 

Complaints paid Respondent as he invoiced them for work already performed. A 

month before trial, Respondent issued an invoice to the Complainants that included 

an unpaid prior balance of $644.50, in addition to new charges. No particular 

invoices were identified as unpaid. In fact, the Complainants had paid all prior 

invoices, including the two most recent invoices, the sums of which totaled 

$644.50. The Complainants did not notice the discrepancy and paid the new 

invoice in full as requested. 

The Complainants accepted a $15,000 settlement offer during trial. Respondent 

paid his firm for his final invoice from the settlement proceeds, but failed to give 

the Complainants credit for a $3,000 payment made shortly before trial that should 

have been reflected on the final invoice. 

Respondent also issued a $4,000 check to a construction company from the 

settlement proceeds. The construction company did not perform any work for the 

Complainants or in relation to their legal matter. A copy of a canceled check 

shows the preprinted memo line was marked through and the name of another 

client (Client B), from whom Respondent had misappropriated trust account funds, 

was handwritten in the memo section.2

 The construction company had performed 

work for Client B. Respondent did not restore the $4,000 improperly disbursed 

from the Complainants' trust account funds. 

2 The Court's 2014 opinion disbarring Respondent refers to this client as "Client B." In re 

Moody, 410 S.C. at 336, 764 S.E.2d at 520. 
Law 

Respondent admits that by failing to properly credit the Complainants for their 

payment of the two prior invoices totaling $644.50, and by then billing for and 

accepting payment for those invoices a second time, he charged and collected 

unreasonable fees in violation of Rule 1.5(a), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (fees). 

Respondent also admits he violated Rule 1.5(a), RPC, when he failed to give the 

Complainants credit for their final $3,000 payment made prior to trial. Respondent 

further admits that by disbursing $4,000 to Client B from the Complainants' trust 

account funds, he violated Rules 1.15(d) and (g), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR 

(safekeeping client property). 

Respondent also admits his conduct constitutes grounds for discipline under Rule 

7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (violating or attempting to violate the Rules of 

Professional Conduct). 

Conclusion 

We find Respondent's misconduct warrants the payment of restitution to the 

Complainants. See Rule 7(b)(5), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (allowing the sanction 

of "restitution to persons financially injured, [and] repayment of unearned or 

inequitable attorney's fees or costs advanced by the client"). Accordingly, we 

accept the Agreement and order Respondent to pay $7,644.50 in restitution to the 

Complainants. Additionally, within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion, 

Respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this 

matter by ODC and the Commission or enter into a reasonable payment plan with 

the Commission to pay the same. 

RESTITUTION ORDERED. 

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