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

In the Matter of Abigail P. Allocco, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001472

Opinion No. 27659 Submitted August 9, 2016 – Filed August 24, 2016

DEFINITE SUSPENSION

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sabrina

C. Todd, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Abigail P. Allocco, Pro Se

.

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 (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 a public reprimand or a definite s uspension not to exceed nine months. 1 As a condition of discipline, respondent agrees to complete the Lega l Ethics and Practice Program Law Office Manag ement School within one year o f the issuance of a sanction, if a public reprimand is issued, or prior to reinstatement if her license is suspended. Respondent has pre viously completed the other po rtions of the Legal Ethics and Practice Program. Res pondent also agrees to pay the costs incurred by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct in investigating and p rosecuting this matter within thirty days of discipline being rendered. W e accept the

1 Respondent has a disciplinary hist ory that consists of a confi dential admonition issued on May 4, 2011, arising from previous misconduct in North Carolina. I n addition to citing Rules 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4 07, SCACR, infra , the admonition indicated respondent failed to com ply with North Carolina's rul e regarding safekeeping of
property.Agreement and suspend respondent from the practice of law in th is state for nine months. The facts, as set fort h in the Agreement, are as follo ws.

Facts

Respondent is licensed to practi ce law in South Carolina, but h as never been licensed to practice law in Nort h Carolina. In November 2009, the Authorized
Practice Committee of the North Carolina State Bar issued a let ter of caution to respondent finding probable cause that she had engaged in the u nauthorized practice of law in violation of t hat state's statutory law and its rules of professional
conduct. The letter instructed respondent to cease and desist providing legal services in the state on a systematic and continuous basis. The letter also stated the committee expected respondent to pr omptly withdraw her firm's i nterstate law firm registration on file with North Car olina and noted the registration did not authorize her to practice law in the state or hold herself out as able to do so. However, respondent did not withdraw her l aw firm's registration and lat er changed the firm's name to reflect her own name change.

In 2011, respondent entered int o an agreement for discipline by consent in South Carolina for her conduct underlyi ng the North Carolina State Ba r's letter of caution. As a result of the agr eement, this Court issued the c onfidential
admonition referenced in footnote 1.

In April 2014, respondent conducte d a closing for the purchase of residential property in North Carolina. The purchas er, whom respondent represented, subsequently filed a complaint against resp ondent with the North Carolina St ate Bar and the South Carolina Commission on Lawyer Conduct.

In February 2015, the Authorized Practice Committee of the Nort h Carolina State Bar again issued a letter of caution, finding probable cause that r espondent had engaged in the unauthorized pr actice of law. The committee fou nd respondent provided the complainant with l egal advice and services and hel d herself out in
numerous emails and communications with the complainant as having a law office
in North Carolina. The committ ee also found respondent negotia ted with the seller's attorney on the complain ant's behalf, holding herself out as an attorney
licensed in North Carolina in the process. The committee deman ded respondent stop engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and requested respondent respond to the letter of caution within fifteen days; however, respondent did not respond as requested.Approximately six weeks after clos ing, the complainant began in quiring by email and telephone about the title insuran ce policy that was supposed to have been purchased. Although the complainant initially received responses, respondent's law firm did not obtain the polic y, did not adequately follow u p on the issue, and later stopped responding to the complainant's inquiries.

Respondent states she thought her paralegal was handling the issue of the outstanding policy, as well as keeping the co mplainant informed, but respon dent failed to supervise the paralega l and later learned that was not the case . Respondent learned about the paralegal's failure t o handle the policy issue approx imately four months after the closing, at which tim e respondent told the complainan t she would take
care of the issue herself. Howe ver, respondent became busy and the complainant's concerns "fell through the cracks."

After the complaint was filed in this matter, respondent contac ted the title insurance company to learn what steps neede d to be taken to secure the po licy. However, after taking some action, which she did not document, responden t did not follow up and erroneously assumed the policy had been issued. Respond ent did not investigate further until after ODC made multiple inquiries abo ut the status of the policy. Respondent secured the policy in September 2015, well over a year after the closing. Respondent states she mailed the complainant the original policy with
no cover letter a nd did not follow up to ensure he received it. When advised by ODC that the complainant did not receive the policy, respondent arranged for another copy to be mailed to him, which he received.

The complainant filed suit agains t respondent in North Carolina . Respondent appeared in the matter and has paid the $575 judgment the court awarded to the complainant.

Law

Respondent admits that her conduct violated Rule 5.5(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, R ule 407, SCACR (a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal p rofession in that jurisdiction). In addition, respondent admits her conduct violated the following
North Carolina Rules of Profess ional Conduct: Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 (communications); Rule 5.3 (supe rvision of non-lawyers); and Ru le 5.5(b) (prohibiting a lawyer not licensed in North Carolina from estab lishing an office or other systematic and continuous p resence in the state and also prohibiting the lawyer from holding herself out as admitted to practice law in North Carolina).Finally, respondent admits these violations constitute grounds for discipline under Rules 7(a)(1) and (2), RLDE.

Conclusion

We hereby suspend respondent fro m the practice of law in this s tate for nine months. Respondent shall complete the Legal Ethics and Practic e Program Law Office Management School prior to reinstatement. Respondent sh all also pay the costs incurred by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct in i nvestigating and prosecuting this matter within thirty days of the date of t his opinion.

Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent sha ll file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that she has complied with Rule 30 of Rule 413,

SCACR.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

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