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

In the Matter of William Gary White, III, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000029

Opinion No. 28038 Submitted June 3, 2021 – Filed June 23, 2021

DEFINITE SUSPENSION

Disciplinary Counsel John S. Nichols and Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Carey Taylor Markel, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

William Gary White, III, of Leesville, 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 (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 4 13 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Res pondent admits misconduct, consents to the imposition of any sanction contained in Rule 7(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and agrees to pay the costs incurre d by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (Commission) in inves tigating and prosecuting this matter. We accept the Agreement and suspend Respondent from the pr actice of law in this state for three

years.

I.

Matter A

On March 7, 2011, Respondent filed a summ ons and complaint in state court on behalf of Client A. Respondent did not serve the summons and complaint onbehalf of his client. On that same da te, this Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of ninety days. In re White , 391 S.C. 581, 707 S.E.2d 411 (2011). On March 11, 2011, this Court appointed Ian McVey to serve as an attorney to protect the in terests of Respondent's clients, including assuming responsibility for Respondent's c lient files. In this role, McVey
discovered that Client A had written three letters to Respondent on April 12, 2011, April 19, 2011, and April 20, 2011.

On April 27, 2011, McVey wrote to C lient A, informing him of Respondent's suspension and that Respondent therefore could not represent Client A. McVey
also informed Client A that he would file a motion to stay th e proceedings in the lawsuit Respondent had filed on Client A' s behalf. On May 11, 2011, McVey filed a motion requesting that the circuit court stay the pending action until it could be
"transferred to other counsel or the e nd of [Respondent's] suspension whichever comes first." At the time of Respondent's suspension, Client A was incarcerated.

On June 11, 2011, Respondent was reinstated to the practice of law in this state and
thereafter remained counsel of record for Client A. Ov er a year and a half after Respondent was reinstated to the practice of law, he had take n no further action on behalf of Client A in the prosecution of Client A's case. Indeed, Respondent failed to serve the summons and complaint or pros ecute Client A's case . On December 4, 2012, the circuit court dismissed the lawsu it with prejudice pursuant to Rule 5(d), SCRCP, stating "over a year and a half after [Respondent's] suspension ended, it appears that no further action has been taken towards the prosecution of this
action."

Respondent admits his conduct in this matter violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct in Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (diligence) and Rule 1.4 (communication).

Matter B

In September 2013, Respondent secured the court-reporting services of Southern Reporting, Inc., for four depositions. So uthern Reporting produced and delivered the transcripts Respondent requested. On September 12, 2013, Southern Reporting invoiced Respondent for its deposition serv ices in the amount of $752.95. Respondent did not remit payment. Af ter multiple inquiries from Southern Reporting requesting that Respondent pay the invoices, Respondent emailed Southern Reporting on February 5, 2014, st ating "I [will] start getting you caughtup." On April 3, 2014, Southern Reporting submitted a complaint to ODC regarding Respondent's failure to pay for its services. Respondent did not pay Southern Reporting for its services until June 2015.

Respondent admits his conduct in this matter violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct in Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 4.4 (respect for rights of third persons) and Rule 8.4(e) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Matter C

Respondent represented Client C as a plainti ff in a lawsuit in federal court. The
defendants in the lawsuit served written discovery requests on Respondent; however, Respondent provided only partial a nd incomplete responses and failed to complete standard interrogatories require d by the local civil rules. Additionally, Respondent and his client failed to appear at Client C's duly noticed deposition. Thereafter, the defendants in the lawsu it moved to dismiss the action based on Respondent's failure to comply with the di scovery rules. In his response to the motion to dismiss, Respondent referred to hi mself as a "semi-retired attorney with
no staff or resources." The federal court denied the mo tion to dismiss and ordered Respondent to pay $3,015 of the defendant s' legal fees as a sanction for Respondent's failure to comply with the c ourt's discovery rules. This sum was payable within thirty days. Respondent di d not move to reconsider or modify the order sanctioning him.

Respondent failed to pay the sum ordered, and the defendants again moved to dismiss. At the hearing, Respondent admitt ed he violated the sanctions order and had not represented his client competently but offered no substantive explanation for his repeated failure to adhere to c ourt rules. Respondent requested a payment plan, and the case was permitted to proceed . However, several months later, the federal court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Notably, the evidence Respondent cited in opposition to the motion for summary judgment could not be considered because Responde nt had not disclosed it in discovery.

Respondent admits his conduct in this matter violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct in Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (competence); Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 3.4(c) (knowingly disobe ying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); Rule 3.4(d) (failing to make re asonable efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request); Rule 8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct); and Rule 8.4(e) (conduct prejudic ial to the administration of justice.)II.

Respondent admits his conduct constitute s grounds for discipline under the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (violation of the Rules of Pro fessional Conduct); Ru le 7(a)(5) conduct tending to pollute the administration of jus tice); and 7(a)(7) (willful violation of a valid court order). Respondent also agrees that within thirty days of the imposition of discipline, he will pay the costs incurre d in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission.

In terms of the appropriate sanction, we note Respondent's disciplinary history includes three published opinions from this Court. See In re White , 391 S.C. 581, 707 S.E.2d 411 (2011) (imposing a ninety-day definite suspensi on and citing Rule

1.1 (competence), Rule 4.4 (respect for rights of third persons), and Rule 8.4(e) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR); In
re White , 378 S.C. 333, 663 S.E.2d 21 (2008) (imposing a six-month definite suspension citing Rule 1.1 (competence), Rule 1.2 (consultin g with client and abiding by client's decisions), Rule 1.4 (communication), Rule 1.5 (properly concluding contingent fee matters), Rule 1.15 (safeguarding client property and rendering full accounting regarding clie nt property), Rule 8.4(d) (conduct involving dishonesty), and Rule 8.4(e) (c onduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR); and In re White , 328 S.C. 88, 492 S.E.2d 82 (1997) (publicly reprimanding Respondent fo r violating Rule 1.15(a) (comingling funds), Rule 1.16(d) (persistent refusal to return client file at the conclusion of representation), and Rule 3.5 (ex parte co mmunication with the court), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR).

Respondent also received an admonition in 2001 citing Rule 1.1 (competence), Rule 1.3 (diligence), Rule 1.4 (communication), Rule 3.1 (frivolous proceeding), Rule 3.2 (expediting litigation), Rule 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and Rule 5.3 (responsibilitie s regarding non-lawyer assi stants), RPC, Rule 407,

SCACR. See Rule 7(b)(4), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR ("[A]n admonition may be used in subsequent proceedings as evid ence of misconduct solely upon the issue of sanction to be imposed."). Additionally , from 1998 to 2012, Respondent received four letters of caution citing various Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, including Rule 1.3 (diligence), Ru le 1.4 (communication), and Rule 8.4 (misconduct), all of which are imp licated in the current matter. See Rule 2(s), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (a le tter of caution may be considered in a subsequentdisciplinary proceeding against the lawyer if the caution or warning contained
therein is relevant to the misconduc t alleged in the proceedings).

III.

In light of Respondent's lengthy disciplinary history and pattern of misconduct, we find a three-year definite suspension is ap propriate. We accept the Agreement and suspend Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of three years. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, Respondent shall file an
affidavit with the Clerk of Court showi ng that he has comp lied with Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Wi thin thirty 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.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

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