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, Disciplinary 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 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 an admonition or public reprimand. In addition, respondent 

agrees to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter 

by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) within thirty 

(30) days of the imposition of discipline 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 the Agreement, are as follows. 
 

 

Facts 

Respondent admits he engaged in a sexual relationship with Client while 

representing her in a divorce proceeding. Respondent maintains, however, he gave 

Client competent and diligent representation and the relationship did not impact the 

representation. Respondent counseled Client 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 restricted 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 restricted visitation with the child based 

on his continued alcohol abuse. Alimony was not sought by Client as she earned 

considerably more than her husband. Alimony 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 aspects of their relationship not long 

after the final decree was issued in July 2011. Respondent and Client 

communicated after the physical relationship ended as respondent answered 

Client's questions regarding the wording or application of the final divorce decree. 

Sometime later, Client, represented by new counsel, brought another action against 

her now ex-husband to terminate his parental 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 involved in the case when Client was 

presented with a crisis1

 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 cooperated in its investigation of this matter, that he 

showed genuine remorse and fully admitted 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-husband 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 with client when client is in vulnerable condition or 

otherwise subject to control or undue influence of lawyer, when such relations 

could have harmful or prejudicial effect upon 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 misconduct warrants a public reprimand. Accordingly, we 

accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct. 

Within thirty (30) days of 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 six (6) months of the date of this opinion, respondent shall 

attend and complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School, Trust 

Account School, and Advertising 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.