THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Robert Andrew Hedesh, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2015-001430 

Opinion No. 27559 

Submitted July 28, 2015 – Filed August 12, 2015 

DEFINITE SUSPENSION 

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Ericka M. 

Williams, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of 

Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Robert Andrew Hedesh, 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 

the imposition of any sanction set forth in Rule 7(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. 

We accept the Agreement and suspend respondent from the practice of law in this 

state for ninety days. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows. 

Facts 

The allegations set forth in the Agreement relate to respondent's actions as a 

closing attorney. As further background information, respondent served as a 

closing attorney for Belle Terre Title Company, which was located in a separate 

suite in the same building as respondent's law office. Respondent's trust account 

checks were housed in a locked cabinet in Belle Terre's suite. In October 2008, 

there was a theft at Belle Terre's office and forty blank checks were stolen from the 

checkbook for respondent's trust account. The theft was not discovered initially 
 

because there was no forced entry to the office and the stolen checks were removed 

from the back of the checkbook. Near the end of November 2008, respondent was 

attempting to conduct a manual reconciliation of his trust account when he 

discovered inconsistencies in the check numbers. An investigation led to the arrest 

of the title agent's brother and two accomplices. The persons responsible for the 

theft negotiated several of the stolen checks before being apprehended. 

Respondent sought criminal charges against the perpetrators and filed a civil 

lawsuit against them. Respondent also filed lawsuits against the banks that cashed 

the stolen checks. Respondent deposited his own funds to cover some of the losses 

in his trust account. Respondent cooperated at all times with law enforcement. 

Matter I 

In three closings, respondent failed to ensure the closing documents were recorded in 

a timely manner. In a fourth closing, the closing documents were not recorded at 

all. The lender recorded the documents without respondent's assistance, and as a 

result, had to pay $7,000 in deed stamps for the transaction because respondent did 

not have the money. 

The transaction closed in September 2008, but the lender was not able to record the 

documents until March 2009. During this period, respondent delegated the task of 

recording the closing documents to the title agent with Belle Terre. Respondent 

represents he supervised the process; however, he was not aware the documents 

were not recorded until it was brought to his attention by the lender. Respondent 

further represents he did not immediately have the funds for the deed stamps due to 

the theft of his trust account checks but he fully intended to cover the losses in this 

matter. However, the lender chose to immediately file the documents to protect its 

interests. Respondent represents he had exhausted most of his personal funds and 

his home equity line, and his only access at the time was to start taking cash from 

his credit cards. 

Matter II 

On December 29, 2008, the computer system at the bank where respondent's trust 

account was established indicated a check in the amount of $186,656.02 written on 

respondent's trust account could not be paid due to insufficient funds. The 

following day, respondent deposited a personal check for $10,000 into the account 

so the trust account check could be negotiated. Respondent informed the bank 

about the theft of trust account checks, and he signed affidavits of forgery for each 

of the checks written by the perpetrators, totaling approximately $88,590. 
 

Matter III 

ODC received notice of a check written on insufficient funds from respondent's trust 

account in the amount of $150.97. The check was written on August 11, 2008, but 

not presented for payment until June 23, 2009. At the time the check was 

presented, respondent's trust account was not in use and had a zero balance. 

Respondent ceased use of the account in 2008 following the theft of checks. 

Respondent represents he made contact with the payee of the check and resolved 

the matter. 

Matter IV 

In January 2011, RBC Bank brought suit against respondent in federal court alleging 

negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The suit arose from respondent's role as 

closing attorney in seventeen transactions occurring between January 17, 2008 and 

August 19, 2008. In each case, RBC loaned funds that were used to purchase 

residential properties. The transactions were part of an elaborate mortgage fraud 

scheme where participants in the scheme recruited "straw buyers" to apply for a 

loan to purchase property. A fraudulent loan application was prepared, supported 

by fake documentation regarding the straw buyers' income or assets. Participants 

in the scheme then induced appraisers to produce inflated appraisals. At closing, 

loan proceeds were paid to participants in the scheme or companies controlled by 

them. Thereafter, the loans went into default. A few payments were made on 

some of the loans, but no payments were made on the remaining loans. 

It is not alleged respondent participated in the loan scheme or even knew of the 

scheme; however, at the time of the real estate transactions, all of the books and 

records for respondent's real estate trust account were under the control and 

custody of a title agent for Chicago Title Insurance Company. Respondent 

permitted the title agent to write checks drawn on respondent's trust account for the 

purpose of disbursing loan proceeds, and allowed the agent to reconcile and audit 

the trust account. Respondent also permitted the title agent to prepare title 

abstracts on each property, prepare HUD-1 statements for each transaction and 

collect borrower contributions and payoff information. Respondent failed to 

properly supervise the title agent in these transactions. The title agent was a key 

participant in the mortgage fraud scheme. 
Matter V 

Respondent received $5,000 as an earnest money deposit from a potential 

purchaser of real estate. The Contract of Sale for the property was signed by the 

seller and purchaser on June 7, 2010, but the sale was not consummated. The 

seller of the property requested that the earnest money be transferred to him 

because the buyer had breached the terms of the sales contract. Respondent 

informed the seller that respondent would need a release signed by the buyer, or a 

court order, before respondent could release the money to the seller. The seller 

filed a lawsuit against the buyer for breach of contract and requested the court 

issue an order for the release of the $5,000 deposit to the seller. The seller was 

unable to locate the buyer to serve the complaint so the lawsuit did not progress. 

Respondent represents the $5,000 deposit is still being held in his trust account. 

Law 

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

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); Rule 1.15(a)(a 

lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in the lawyer's 

possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own 

property, such funds shall be kept in a separate account, and complete records of 

such funds shall be kept by the lawyer); Rule 5.3 (a lawyer who has supervisory 

authority over a nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure the person's 

conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer and the 

lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of the person that would be a violation of 

the RPC if engaged in by a lawyer); and Rule 8.4(a) (it is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or 

induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another). Respondent also 

admits he has violated Rule 7(a)(1)(it shall be a ground for discipline for a lawyer 

to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or any other rules of this jurisdiction 

regarding professional conduct of lawyers) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary 

Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR. Finally, respondent admits he violated Rule 417, 

SCACR (financial recordkeeping requirements). 

Respondent states he has ceased doing any buyer related real estate work. He states 

he has participated in less than five transactions in the last three years and those 

involved preparing deeds related to work with other clients such as homeowners' 

associations. 
In addition to consenting to the imposition of any sanction in Rule 7(b), RLDE, 

respondent also agrees to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and 

prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct and to 

complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and Trust Account 

School within nine months of the imposition of any sanction. 

Conclusion 

We accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and suspend respondent from 

the practice of law in this state for ninety days. He shall also pay the costs incurred 

in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on 

Lawyer Conduct and complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics 

School and Trust Account School within nine months of the date of this opinion, as 

agreed. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file an 

affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that he has complied with Rule 30 of 

Rule 413, SCACR. 

DEFINITE SUSPENSION. 

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

concur.