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

In the Matter of Ronald Wade Moak, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000202

Opinion No. 27889 Submitted April 17, 2019 – Filed May 15, 2019

DEFINITE SUSPENSION

John S. Nichols, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sabrina C. Todd, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

George W. Speedy and Zack Owen Atkinson, both of Speedy, Tanner, Atkinson & Cook, LLC, of Camden, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Offic e of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (the Agreement) pursuan t to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SC ACR. In the Agreement, respondent admits mis conduct and consents to the imp osition of a definite suspension of not more than one year. We accept the A greement and suspend respondent from the prac tice of law in this state for one year from the date of this opinion. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

Facts

Matter I

Respondent agreed to represent D.D. on seven drug charges and o ne count of financial identity theft for a flat fee. D.D. was arrested on a bench warrant several months before respondent's representation began and remained in jail throughout the representation, as respondent 's efforts to have the bench warrant lifted wereunsuccessful. Respondent shared im portant developments in the case with D.D.,

but did not write D.D. and did not recall receiving the numerou s letters D.D. reports having sent respondent. Frustrated by D.D.'s failure t o make payments as promised, respondent eventually stopped visiting D.D. in jail.

When respondent ceased contact, D.D. wrote to the clerk of cour t and a circuit judge regarding the lack of progr ess in his case. Over a two-m onth period, the judge responded to four of D.D.'s letters. Each time, the judg e emailed respondent and the solicitor, including D.D.' s letter and th e judge's resp onse. D.D.'s first two

letters concerned evidence in his case. In the third letter, D .D. complained about respondent and requested the public defender's office be reappo inted. The judge responded by asking respondent and the solicitor to have D.D. b rought to court so his request could be heard. D.D. was not brought to court and wrote to the judge again two weeks later, advising he had not had any contact with respondent despite writing respondent several letters.

Respondent made no attempt to contact D.D. after learning D.D. was contacting the judge and, instead, moved to be relieved after receiving th e judge's fourth response to D.D. By the time of the hearing on respondent's mo tion to be relieved,

it had been at least six months since respondent communicated w ith D.D. The court relieved respon dent and reappointed t he public defender.

Matter II

K.F. sought respondent's assistance with enforcing a child supp ort order. Respondent agreed to pursue a contempt action for a $600 fee. He received a down payment and K.F.'s child s upport order. Respondent showed K.F. a copy of the contempt complaint before he filed it, but did not provide her with a filed copy. Respondent notified K.F. of the h earing date and asked one of h is friends to serve K.F.'s ex-husband. However, respon dent's friend failed to serv e the ex-husband. Respondent could not reach the friend prior to the scheduled he aring and never learned why service did not occur. Respondent told K.F. he wou ld have the hearing rescheduled and the docum ents served; however, he did n ot request a new hearing date.

Respondent failed to respond to K.F.' s texts and/or communicate with her family

members. 1 In one text, K.F. asked responden t to return her documents an d

1 Because K.F. was profoundly ha rd of hearing, respondent commun icated with herwithdraw from the case so she could hire new counsel. Responde nt admits he never fully read the text. K.F. also sent respondent a certifi ed letter with the same requests; however, respondent never collected the letter from t he post office.

One month after the contempt h earing was scheduled to occur, K. F. filed a complaint with ODC. Approximately six weeks after learning of the investigation and after receiving multiple status inquiries from ODC, respond ent returned K.F.'s file and had her execute a consent order relieving him. The cl erk of court does not have a copy of the consent orde r and respondent did not retain a copy; however,

K.F. was able to hire new counsel who pursued a contempt action on her behalf.

K.F. filed both a disciplinary comp laint and a fee dispute. Be lieving the fee dispute was part of the discip linary investigation, respondent did not cooperate with the fee dispute investigator. The Resolution of Fee Dispu tes Board (the Board) decided K.F. was entitled to a refund of the $200 she paid respondent. Respondent did not appeal the Board 's decision and did not refu nd the money. Respondent claims he offered K.F. a refund, but she declined it

.

Matter III

Respondent represented E.M. at a bond revocation hearing in Aug ust 2017. Respondent and E.M. had differing recollections about the scope of the representation and there was no written fee agreement between t he parties. Respondent maintains he agreed t o represent E.M. at the bond re vocation hearing for $500, and in the event he wa s hired to represent E.M. on th e underlying criminal charges, the $500 would be applied to the $1,500 fee h e quoted E.M. for

the entire case. E.M. contends t he scope of the representation was never limited to the revocation bond hearing.

Respondent represented E.M. at t he bond revocation hearing with out receiving any payment. Weeks after the heari ng, E.M.'s sister paid responden t $100.

Thereafter, confusion arose about whether respondent or the pub lic defender's office was representing E.M. on hi s charges and a hearing was h eld to clarify the matter. At the hearing, responden t asked the court to consider him E.M.'s attorney, explaining he appeared at the bond revocation hearing based on a promise of being hired on E.M.'s pending charges , and he had not "been paid at a ll on this case."

by text and through te lephone conversations w ith her mother and stepfather.E.M. told the court the public defender was his attorney. The court relieved respondent and clarified the public defender represented E.M. o n all pending charges.

In the weeks that followed, E.M . paid respondent an additional $300. In December 2017, based on the additional paym ents and E.M.'s promise to continue to make monthly payments, respondent file d a notice of appearance on ea ch of E.M.'s pending charges. However, respon dent did not file any discover y requests because he believed he could get the discovery fro m the public defender

.

In January 2018, another hearing was held to clarify counsel in response to a letter

E.M. sent to the court. At this hearing, the public defender w as relieved and respondent was recognized as E.M. 's counsel. E.M. requested di scovery during the hearing and the public defender offered to forward the discover y from the State to respondent. Respondent advised th e court that, when he receive d it, he would share the discovery with E.M. Respondent received the discovery at the hearing and maintains he reviewed some of it briefly with E.M. at the c ourthouse. Thereafter, because E.M. was not making payments, respondent ch ose not to visit E.M. to review the discovery in more detail and did not provide E.M. with a copy of the discovery.

E.M. filed a motion to relieve respondent. At a March 2019 hea ring, respondent stated he was willing to be relie ved because E.M. was not payin g him. Respondent admitted he had the discovery at his home and did not refute E. M.'s claim that he had not provided E.M. with a copy. The court relieved respondent and reappointed the public defender.

Matter IV

E.M. filed an application with t he Board seeking the return of the $400 he and his family paid toward respondent's fees. The fee disputes coordin ator emailed respondent a copy of the fee dis pute. An investigator contacte d respondent via email and voicemail; however, respondent failed to respond. Th e investigator filed a report recommending E.M.'s claim be approved in full. The ci rcuit co-chair

concurred and mailed both respondent and E.M. a letter stating the $400 repayment should be made within thirty days of the receipt of the letter. Respondent did not file an appeal and did not compl y with the Board's decision. The circuit co-chair emailed respondent three times s eeking his compliance with the decision before he reported respondent's noncompliance to ODC.Respondent admits he did not respond to any communications rega rding the fee dispute, did not appeal the Boa rd's decision, and did not pay the award within the timeframe provided by the co-ch air. However, respondent mainta ins his failure to comply with the fee dispute proce ss and the Board's final decis ion was not willful; rather, respondent claims he faile d to carefully read the lette rs and emails he received regarding the fee disput e and incorrectly believed they were all part of the disciplinary investigation.

Matter V

R.K. hired respondent in November 2017 to file a custody transfer action involving the Department of Social Servi ces. R.K.'s child had been place d with a relative but, because her circumstances had improved, she expected no ob jection to the child being returned to her cu stody. R.K. paid respondent $500 , which constituted

unearned fees when it was received. Respondent did not have a written advance fee agreement that would permit him to treat the money as earned upon receipt, and he failed to deposit the funds into a trust account.

Respondent did not file an action in family court and did not adequately communicate with R.K. R.K. became so frustrated by her inabili ty to reach respondent that she began having friends and relatives contact him. Respondent advised one caller that he mispla ced the documents R.K. had pro vided to him and needed a certain replacement docum ent in order to file the acti on. R.K. obtained a new copy of the document in que stion, but was unable to reach r espondent to provide it to him.

Matter VI

C.F. hired respondent after his bond was revoked. Respondent a nd C.F. agreed upon a $2,000 fee, with a $500 down pa yment and monthly payment s of $100. Respondent did not deposit the $500 into a trust account even though it was unearned upon receipt, and the par ties did not have a written a dvance fee

agreement entitling him to treat the money as earned upon recei pt.

C.F.'s most immediate goal was to have his bond reinstated. Re spondent moved to have C.F.'s bond reinstated, m oved for discovery, and requested a preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing was scheduled, but respondent r equested a continuance without informing C.F. the reason for the continuan ce. C.F.'s wifeasked respondent why he sought th e continuance, but respondent did not respond.

At a hearing on respondent's moti on to reinstate bond, the judg e declined the

motion but ordered the solicitor to bring at least one of the c harges to trial within ninety days. Because of the j udge's ruling, the solicitor ensu red C.F.'s charges went to a grand jury, C.F. was i ndicted approximately two weeks later, and C.F. proceeded to trial on his oldest charge within the order's time frame. Respondent

tried the case and C.F. was found not guilty. Despite that victory, C.F. wanted to

be released on bond and wrote th e clerk of court and the solici tor's office requesting respondent be removed from his cases and the public defender's office be reappointed.

Respondent's Failure to Cooperate

Respondent submitted timely responses to ODC's notices of investigation in

Matters I and II. ODC scheduled a n on-the-record interview for those matters and sent respondent a notice to appear and subpoena via certified m ail. Three weeks later, ODC emailed respondent becau se he had yet to collect the certified letter. Respondent collected the mail from his post office box, but did not appear for the interview or contact ODC to explain and reschedule. ODC's effo rts to reach respondent by phone and email on the day of the scheduled inter view were unsuccessful. Respondent later expl ained he was preparing for trial and trying to arrange to take his elderly stepf ather to Charleston for cancer treatment and simply forgot.

The interview was rescheduled for March 2, 2018. Respondent ap peared, but failed to bring all the requested records. After the interview , ODC requested additional documentation by ema il. Respondent did not respond or provide the requested documentation. Responde nt also failed to return a fo llow-up voicemail

from ODC. Respondent was personally served with a subpoena and notice to appear at a May 4, 2018 interv iew and brought the requested doc umentation for

Matters I and II to that interview.

Respondent failed to respond to the notice of investigation for Matter III. A

reminder letter sent t o respondent via certified mail was retur ned unclaimed. Respondent provided testimony rega rding Matter II I during his M ay 4, 2018 interview, but did not bring a written response despite being r eminded the written response was overdue in the corre spondence attached to the noti ce to appear. Respondent testified he intended to provide a written response, but did not offerone until September 6, 2018.

Respondent did not respond to the notices of investigation or r eminder letters in Matters IV and V. On August 13 , 2018, he was personally served with a subpoena and notice to appear for an interview regarding Matters III, IV, and V. The cover letter advised that his appear ance was not a substitute for his overdue written responses. Respondent appeared a s scheduled and provided testi mony, but did not bring the written responses. Dur ing the interview, respondent admitted he had not checked his post office box since mid- to late-July despite kno wing he had several pending disciplinary investigati ons, and he had not provided a written response in Matter III. Even after receiving the notice that informed him of the existence of Matters IV and V, respondent chose not to check his mail prior to the interview on September 4, 2018. Respondent pro vided written responses in Ma tter III, IV, and V on September 6, 2018.

Law

Respondent admits that by his conduc t he has violated the follo wing provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: 1.3 (dilige nce); 1.4 (communication); 1.15(a) (safekeep ing client property); 1.15(c) (requiring unearned fees be deposited into a trust account) 1.16(d) (refun ding unearned fees upon termination of representat ion); 8.1(b) (failing to respond to a lawful demand

for information from a disciplinary authority); and 8.4(e) (eng aging in conduct prejudicial to the administrati on of justice). Respondent furt her admits his conduct

violated Rule 11 of the Resolu tion of Fee Disputes Board, Rule 416, SCACR (cooperation with an investigation by assigned member).

Respondent also admits his conduc t constitutes grounds for disc ipline pursuant to Rule 7(a)(1) (violating the Rule s of Professiona l Conduct) and (3) (willfully failing to appear personally, comply w ith a subpoena, or respond to a l awful demand from a disciplinary authority), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

Conclusion

We find respondent's misconduct warrants a definite suspension from the practice of law in this state for one year from the date of this opinion . Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and suspend respondent for a period of one year. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigations and prosecu tions of these matters by ODC and theCommission, and shall pay $500 in restitution to R.K.

Additionally, prior to seeking reinstatement, respondent must d emonstrate his compliance with Rule 33, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (reinstatement following a definite suspension for nine mon ths or more), including complet ion of Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School within the preceding year.

Finally, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file an

affidavit with the Clerk of Cour t showing that he has complied with Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (dutie s following suspension).

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTRED GE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.