Case Name: In the Matter of James Arthur CHEEK, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1991-01-21
Citations: 303 S.C. 280
Docket Number: 23308
Parties: In the Matter of James Arthur CHEEK, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 303
Pages: 280–282

Head Matter:
23308
In the Matter of James Arthur CHEEK, Respondent.
(400 S.E. (2d) 139)
Supreme Court
JohnR. Harper, II, Columbia, for respondent.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Deputy Atty. Gen. William K. Moore, and Asst. Atty. Gen. James G. Bogle, Jr., Columbia, for complainants.
Heard Dec. 11, 1990.
Decided Jan. 21, 1991.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
This is an attorney disciplinary matter. The hearing panel and the Executive Committee found respondent advanced a position merely to harass or maliciously injure another and improperly disclosed the existence of a grievance complaint in violation of Rule 20 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure. We concur in these findings and conclude the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand and restitution.
The findings of misconduct arose from the following matters. In October 1986, attorney Cheryl Aaron instituted a civil lawsuit on behalf of a client who alleged respondent's client had participated in sexually assaulting her. When Aaron refused respondent's request to dismiss his client from the action, respondent filed a third-party complaint against Aaron and her law firm for libel. After the third-party complaint was dismissed upon motion of Aaron's defense counsel, respondent appealed to this Court and subsequently sought to reinstate the appeal after it was dismissed as abandoned.
As a result of the third-party action and appeal, Aaron was forced to withdraw from her representation and incurred $2,022.79 in attorney's fees. Respondent has reimbursed Aaron $1,000.00 of that amount.
In April 1987, respondent represented Robert Petty in an attempt to set aside a settlement obtained on Petty's behalf by another Spartanburg attorney. In his motion to substitute counsel, respondent stated Petty had instituted a grievance complaint against the Spartanburg attorney. Even though re spondent knew the grievance matter had been dismissed, he again stated in a subsequent motion and on appeal that a grievance complaint had been filed.
Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Further, respondent shall make full restitution to Cheryl Aaron in the amount of $1,022.79.
Public reprimand. .
Now Rule 413, para. 20, SCACR.
Under South Carolina law, defamatory statements in a complaint, if relevant to the issues in the case, are absolutely privileged. Redfearn v. Pusser, 276 S.C. 506, 280 S.E. (2d) 206 (1981); Texas Co. v. C.W. Brewer & Co., 180 S.C. 325, 185 S.E. 623 (1936).