THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Marvin Lee Robertson, Jr., Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2015-000050 

Opinion No. 27505 

Submitted March 3, 2015 – Filed March 11, 2015 

DISBARRED 

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sabrina 

C. Todd, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of 

Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

M. Baron Stanton, Esquire, of Stanton Law Offices, P.A., 

of Columbia, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: On June 15, 2009, this Court disbarred respondent from the 

practice of law. In the Matter of Robertson, 383 S.C. 140, 678 S.E.2d 440 (2009). 

He has not sought to be readmitted. 

In the current 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 discipline. We accept the Agreement and disbar respondent with 

conditions as set forth hereafter. The disbarment shall run concurrently with 

respondent's June 15, 2009, disbarment. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, 

are as follows. 
Facts 

In 2007, Jane Doe borrowed money against a house that was not her residence. 

Respondent had represented Ms. Doe on various business matters in the past and 

referred her to another attorney in the same office building to close the loan. The 

other attorney served as the settlement agent and handled virtually all aspects of 

the transaction before and after the closing. On the settlement date, however, 

respondent conducted the closing on behalf of the settlement agent. Ms. Doe then 

lent respondent $99,999.70 of the proceeds she received from the closing. 

Respondent submits he fully intended to repay Ms. Doe and did not expect to be 

suspended from the practice of law. Respondent admits the loan constituted a 

business transaction with a client and he did not comply with the safeguards 

outlined in Rule 1.8(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR. 

Specifically, the transaction and its terms were not communicated to Ms. Doe in 

writing, she was not advised of the desirability of consulting independent legal 

counsel, and she never signed any document agreeing to the terms of the loan. 

Respondent made some payments on the loan but ceased making payments in early 

2008, around or after the time he was placed on interim suspension by consent. In 

the Matter of Robertson, Order (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed February 22, 2008) (Shearouse 

Adv. Sh. No. 8 at 14). The Court accepted respondent and ODC's Agreement for 

Discipline by Consent and disbarred respondent on June 15, 2009. In the Matter of 

Robertson, supra. Ms. Doe filed her complaint in March of 2010. Respondent 

owes Ms. Doe a principal balance of $93,999.70. 

Law 

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

the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.8 (lawyer shall not 

enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire ownership, 

possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to client unless: (1) 

transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires interest are fair and reasonable 

to client and fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in manner that can be 

reasonably understood by client; (2) client is advised in writing of desirability of 

seeking and given reasonable opportunity to seek advice of independent legal 
counsel on transaction; and (3) client gives informed consent, in writing signed by 

client, to essential terms of transaction and lawyer's role in the transaction, 

including whether the lawyer is representing client in transaction). 

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 disbar respondent concurrently with his June 15, 

2009, disbarment. Further, we order respondent to fully repay Ms. Doe. To ensure 

repayment, respondent shall enter into a restitution plan with the Commission on 

Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) no later than thirty (30) days from the date of 

this opinion. Respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and 

prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission within thirty (30) days of 

the date of this opinion. Finally, respondent shall complete the Legal Ethics and 

Practice Program Ethics School prior to filing a Petition for Reinstatement. Under 

no circumstances shall respondent be permitted to file a Petition for Reinstatement 

until full restitution and payment of costs have been made to Ms. Doe and as 

ordered in the 2009 opinion disbarring respondent from the practice of law. 

Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and disbar respondent for his misconduct. 

DISBARRED. 

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

concur.