### 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 IM POSED

Lesley M. Coggiola, Discip linary 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 Agreem ent 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, resp ondent admits misconduc t 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 Cour t. Further, respondent consents to the imposition of a bar to adve rtising and solicitation directed to South
Carolina residents or entities and a bar to advertising and solic itation for any legal matters in South Carolina, both for a defi nite or indefinite period of time to be determined by the Court. We accept the Agreement and permanently debar respondent from seeking any form of admi ssion to practice law in this state (including pro hac vice admission) without first obtaini ng an order from this Court allowing him to seek admission. Furt her, we prohibit respondent from anyadvertising or solicitation in South Caro lina whether in general or directed to
residents or entities in South Carolina w ithout first obtaining an order from this Court allowing him to advertis e 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, responde nt filed an answer on be half of defendants in a foreclosure action pending in Charlest on 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 ot herwise permitted to make an appearance in court in South Carolina. Further, respondent's act ions in representing the defendants in the
foreclosure matter were not unde rtaken 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 elig ible 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 Carolin a, but stating that he "frequently practice[s] in South Carolina civil matte rs ... involving foreclosure proceedings and deficiency claims." He further stated that, prior to counsel's letter, he had "received no objection from counsel for secure d 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 simi lar 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 La wyer Conduct (the Commission) and this Court have jurisdiction over all a llegations that a lawyer has committed misconduct. The term "lawyer" includes "a lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction if the lawyer provides or offe rs to provide any le gal services in this jurisdiction...." Rule 2(q), RLDE.

Respondent admits that by his conduct he ha s violated the following provisions of
the Rules of Professional C onduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 5.5(b) (lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction may not estab lish 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 jurisd iction 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 misconduc t 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 connec tion 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 responde nt. According to these orders, respondent's disciplinary history in Nort h Carolina includes a two year suspension stayed upon compliance with certain conditio ns 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 a ny advertising or so licitation 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.