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 Office 

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 suspension not to exceed nine months.1 As a 

condition of discipline, respondent agrees to complete the Legal Ethics and 

Practice Program Law Office Management School within one year of the issuance 

of a sanction, if a public reprimand is issued, or prior to reinstatement if her license 

is suspended. Respondent has previously completed the other portions of the Legal 

Ethics and Practice Program. Respondent also agrees to pay the costs incurred by 

ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct in investigating and prosecuting 

this matter within thirty days of discipline being rendered. We accept the 

1

 Respondent has a disciplinary history that consists of a confidential admonition issued on May 

4, 2011, arising from previous misconduct in North Carolina. In addition to citing Rules 5.5(a), 

8.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, infra, the admonition 

indicated respondent failed to comply with North Carolina's rule regarding safekeeping of 

property. 
Agreement and suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state for nine 

months. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows. 

Facts 

Respondent is licensed to practice law in South Carolina, but has never been 

licensed to practice law in North Carolina. In November 2009, the Authorized 

Practice Committee of the North Carolina State Bar issued a letter of caution to 

respondent finding probable cause that she had engaged in the unauthorized 

practice of law in violation of that 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 promptly withdraw her firm's interstate law firm 

registration on file with North Carolina 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 law firm's registration and later changed the firm's 

name to reflect her own name change. 

In 2011, respondent entered into an agreement for discipline by consent in South 

Carolina for her conduct underlying the North Carolina State Bar's letter of 

caution. As a result of the agreement, this Court issued the confidential 

admonition referenced in footnote 1. 

In April 2014, respondent conducted a closing for the purchase of residential property 

in North Carolina. The purchaser, whom respondent represented, subsequently 

filed a complaint against respondent with the North Carolina State Bar and the 

South Carolina Commission on Lawyer Conduct. 

In February 2015, the Authorized Practice Committee of the North Carolina State Bar 

again issued a letter of caution, finding probable cause that respondent had 

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The committee found respondent 

provided the complainant with legal advice and services and held herself out in 

numerous emails and communications with the complainant as having a law office 

in North Carolina. The committee also found respondent negotiated with the 

seller's attorney on the complainant's behalf, holding herself out as an attorney 

licensed in North Carolina in the process. The committee demanded 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 closing, the complainant began inquiring by email and 

telephone about the title insurance policy that was supposed to have been 

purchased. Although the complainant initially received responses, respondent's 

law firm did not obtain the policy, did not adequately follow up 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 complainant informed, but respondent failed to 

supervise the paralegal and later learned that was not the case. Respondent learned 

about the paralegal's failure to handle the policy issue approximately four months 

after the closing, at which time respondent told the complainant she would take 

care of the issue herself. However, respondent became busy and the complainant's 

concerns "fell through the cracks." 

After the complaint was filed in this matter, respondent contacted the title insurance 

company to learn what steps needed to be taken to secure the policy. However, 

after taking some action, which she did not document, respondent did not follow 

up and erroneously assumed the policy had been issued. Respondent did not 

investigate further until after ODC made multiple inquiries about 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 and 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 against 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, Rule 407, SCACR (a lawyer shall not practice law 

in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that 

jurisdiction). In addition, respondent admits her conduct violated the following 

North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 

(communications); Rule 5.3 (supervision of non-lawyers); and Rule 5.5(b) 

(prohibiting a lawyer not licensed in North Carolina from establishing an office or 

other systematic and continuous presence 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 from the practice of law in this state for nine 

months. Respondent shall complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Law 

Office Management School prior to reinstatement. Respondent shall also pay the 

costs incurred by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct in investigating 

and prosecuting this matter within thirty days of the date of this opinion. 

Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall 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, KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur.