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

In the Matter of Thomas Ryan Phillips, Respondent

Appellate Case No. 2015-000969

Opinion No. 27566 Heard August 5, 2015 – Filed August 26, 2015

PUBLIC REPRIMAND

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disc iplinary Counsel, and William
C. Campbell, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Harvey M. Watson, III, Esquire, of Ballard & Watson, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have ente red into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 4 13 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agre ement, respondent admits mi sconduct and consents to the imposition of an admonition or public reprimand. In addition, respondent agrees to pay the costs incurred in the i nvestigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduc t (the Commission) within thirty (30) days of the imposition of disciplin e and to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School, Trust Account School and Advertising School within six (6) months of the imposition of a sanction. We accept the Agreement, issue a public reprimand, and impose conditions as stated hereafter in this opinion. The facts, as set forth in th e Agreement, are as follows.Facts

Respondent admits he engaged in a se xual relationship with Client while representing her in a divorce proceeding. Respondent maintains, however, he gave Client competent and diligent representati on and the relationship did not impact the representation. Respondent counseled Clie nt as to her options and the possible consequences and risks associated with the options. Client was adamant in her demands that her husband only have restrict ed visitation with their child and that
she wanted to be divorced from her husband.

The divorce action was filed on Client's behalf alleging husband's habitual drunkenness as grounds for the divorce. The divorce was granted to Client on those grounds. Husband was granted very re stricted visitation with the child based on his continued alcohol abuse. Alimony was not sought by Client as she earned considerably more than her husband. Al imony was barred as to the husband as he could not deny his contribution to the breakup of the marriage.

Respondent and Client ended the physical as pects of their relationship not long
after the final decree was issued in July 2011. Respondent and Client communicated after the physical relati onship ended as respondent answered Client's questions regarding the wording or application of the final divorce decree.

Sometime later, Client, re presented by new counsel, brought another action against her now ex-husband to terminate his pare ntal rights based on his continued abuse of alcohol and the threat he posed to the child. Although he did not represent Client, respondent admittedly became i nvolved in the case when Client was presented with a crisis 1 and Client's new counsel was out of town and unavailable. Respondent's only involvement in this action consisted of counseling Client during
the crisis.

ODC asserts respondent fully c ooperated in its investigation of this matter, that he showed genuine remorse and fully admitte d responsibility for his actions, and that his representation of Client was not adversely affected by his misconduct.

1 The crisis occurred when Client's ex-hus band made persistent calls to Client threatening to injure himself over her latest domestic action.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(m) (lawyer shall
not have sexual relations w ith client when client is in vulnerable condition or otherwise subject to control or undue infl uence of lawyer, when such relations could have harmful or prejudicial effect u pon the interests of client, or when sexual relations might adversely affect lawyer’s representation of client) and Rule 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).

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 find respondent's misc onduct warrants a public reprim and. Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and publicly reprim and respondent fo r his misconduct. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and pros ecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission. Within six (6) months of th e date of this opinion, respondent shall attend and complete the Legal Ethics a nd Practice Program Ethics School, Trust Account School, and Advertisi ng School and, no later than ten (10) days after the completion of the programs, submit proof of completion to the Commission.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

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

concur.