### 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 ente red into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (the Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. 1 In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduc t, consents to an order imposing restitution, and consents to payment of th e costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and th e Commission on Lawy er Conduct (the Commission). We accept the Agreement, order Res pondent 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 Agreem ent, 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 wa s 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 hop ed to build a home. In late 2010, Respondent began representing the Complainan ts 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 Complain ants 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 add ition to new charges. No particular invoices were identified as unpaid. In f act, the Complainants had paid all prior invoices, including the two most recent invoices, the sums of which totaled $644.50. The Complainants did not noti ce 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 th e 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 co mpany did not perform any work for the Complainants or in relation to their le gal 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 re fers 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 proper ly credit the Compla inants for their payment of the two prior invoices tota ling $644.50, and by then billing for and accepting payment for those invoices a se cond 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 pa yment 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 constitu tes grounds for discipline under Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SC ACR (violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct).

Conclusion

We find Respondent's misc onduct 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 in jured, [and] repayment of unearned or inequitable attorney's fees or costs adva nced 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 Commissi on or enter into a reasonable payment plan with the Commission to pay the same.

RESTITUTION ORDERED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEAR N, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.