THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of John Brooks Reitzel, Jr., Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2014-002700 

Opinion No. 27495 

Submitted February 3, 2015 – Filed February 11, 2015 

DISCIPLINE IMPOSED 

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Barbara 

M. Seymour, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel, both of 

Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

John Brooks Reitzel, Jr., of High Point, North Carolina, 

pro se. 

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office 

of Disciplinary Counsel 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 a bar to admission of any kind in South Carolina for a definite or 

indefinite period of time to be determined by the Court. Further, respondent 

consents to the imposition of a bar to advertising and solicitation directed to South 

Carolina residents or entities and a bar to advertising and solicitation for any legal 

matters in South Carolina, both for a definite or indefinite period of time to be 

determined by the Court. We accept the Agreement and permanently debar 

respondent from seeking any form of admission to practice law in this state 

(including pro hac vice admission) without first obtaining an order from this Court 

allowing him to seek admission. Further, we prohibit respondent from any 
 

advertising or solicitation in South Carolina whether in general or directed to 

residents or entities in South Carolina without first obtaining an order from this 

Court allowing him to advertise or solicit business in this state. The facts, as set 

forth in the Agreement, are as follows. 

Facts 

Respondent is licensed to practice law and is in good standing in North Carolina. 

He is not, and has never been, licensed to practice law in South Carolina. 

On August 10, 2011, respondent filed an answer on behalf of defendants in a 

foreclosure action pending in Charleston County, South Carolina, involving 

property located in South Carolina. Default was subsequently entered against the 

defendants in the matter. On November 1, 2011, respondent sent a letter opposing 

the default order to the presiding judge on behalf of the defendants. 

At the time respondent filed the answer in the foreclosure matter, he had not 

applied for pro hac vice status in the matter, he was not admitted pro hac vice in 

the matter, and he was not otherwise permitted to make an appearance in court in 

South Carolina. Further, respondent's actions in representing the defendants in the 

foreclosure matter were not undertaken in association with an attorney admitted to 

practice law in South Carolina. 

On November 3, 2011, counsel for the plaintiff wrote to respondent asking for 

verification that he was eligible to appear in court in South Carolina. Respondent 

responded with a letter dated November 8, 2011, acknowledging that he was not 

licensed to practice law in South Carolina, but stating that he "frequently 

practice[s] in South Carolina civil matters ... involving foreclosure proceedings 

and deficiency claims." He further stated that, prior to counsel's letter, he had 

"received no objection from counsel for secured creditors or substitute trustees in 

such proceedings." 

Respondent admits that, in the past, he has assisted other clients in preparing and 

filing responses in foreclosure and similar matters in South Carolina without 

association of local counsel and without seeking pro hac vice admission. 

Respondent represents that, in the future, he will comply with South Carolina rules 

and regulations regarding the practice of law. 
 

 

 

Law 

Respondent admits the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) and 

this Court have jurisdiction over all allegations that a lawyer has committed 

misconduct. The term "lawyer" includes "a lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction 

if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this jurisdiction...." 

Rule 2(q), RLDE. 

Respondent admits that by his conduct he has violated the following provisions of 

the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 5.5(b) (lawyer not 

admitted in this jurisdiction may not establish systematic and continuous presence 

in this jurisdiction for practice of law or hold out to the public or otherwise 

represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction); Rule 

5.5(c) (lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction may not provide legal services on 

temporary basis unless practice complies with Rule 5.5(c), RPC); and Rule 8.4(e) 

(it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to 

administration of justice).1 

Respondent also admits he has violated the following Rules for Lawyer 

Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be ground for 

discipline for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct). 

Conclusion 

We accept the Agreement and permanently debar respondent from seeking any 

form of admission to practice law in this state (including pro hac vice admission) 

without first obtaining an order from this Court allowing him to seek admission.2 

1 The Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, are applicable as 

respondent's misconduct occurred in connection with matters pending before a 

tribunal in South Carolina. See Rule 8.5(b), RPC (addressing choice of law for 

disciplinary matters). 

2 The North Carolina State Bar's website, www.ncbar.gov, provides links to four 

orders imposing discipline upon respondent. According to these orders, 

respondent's disciplinary history in North Carolina includes a two year suspension 

stayed upon compliance with certain conditions issued in 1997, a reprimand issued 

in 1998, a three year suspension stayed upon compliance with certain conditions 

issued in 2000, and a reprimand issued in 2008. 
Further, we prohibit respondent from any advertising or solicitation in South 

Carolina whether in general or directed to residents or entities in South Carolina 

without first obtaining an order from this Court allowing him to advertise or solicit 

business in this state. 

DISCIPLINE IMPOSED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.