Title: In the Matter of Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar
Citation: 287 S.C. 250, 335 S.E.2d 803
Docket Number: N/A
State: south-carolina
Issuer: south-carolina Supreme Court
Date: October 15, 1985

287 S.C. 250 (1985) 335 S.E.2d 803 In The Matter of AN ANONYMOUS MEMBER OF the SOUTH CAROLINA BAR. Supreme Court of South Carolina. October 15, 1985. This matter is before the Court on a recommendation that the respondent, a member of the South Carolina Bar, be privately reprimanded. We dismiss the complaint. The two allegations against the respondent arose out of his representation of a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action. The first allegation is that the fees contained in his retainer agreement with the client were clearly excessive in violation of DR 2-106, Supreme Court Rule 32. Both the Panel and the Executive Committee found that the fees were clearly excessive and recommend a private reprimand. Although the fees in the agreement are probably excessive, *251 we do not believe that any sanction is appropriate in this case. Respondent cooperated fully with the Resolution of Fee Disputes Board of the South Carolina Bar and ultimately agreed to a reduction of his fees. The second allegation is that respondent wrongfully withheld the case file from the client. When the case was about ready for trial, the client discharged the respondent and retained another attorney in the matter. Initially, respondent refused to release the case file to the new attorney until the balance of his fees and disbursements were paid. After agreeing to a reduction in his fees, respondent delivered the file to the new attorney. Relying on an open letter from the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, which was published in The Transcript in October 1984, both the Panel and the Executive Committee found that respondent had violated DR 2-110(A)(2), Supreme Court Rule 32, by withholding the case file. We disagree. At common law, an attorney had a right to a retaining lien. 7A C.J.S. Attorney &amp; Client § 357a (1980); 7 Am. Jur. (2d) Attorneys at Law § 315 (1980). A retaining lien is defined as "the right of an attorney to retain possession of a client's documents, money, or other property which comes into the hands of the attorney professionally, until a general balance due him for professional services is paid." 7A C.J.S. Attorney &amp; Client § 358 (1980). The existence of retaining liens in this State has been recognized in the cases of Keels v. Powell, 207 S.C. 97, 34 S.E. (2d) 482 (1945), and Perry v. Atlantic Coast Line Ins. Co., 166 S.C. 270, 164 S.E. 753 (1932). Such liens are also recognized in numerous other jurisdictions. Annot. 3 A.L.R. (2d) 148 (1949). Under DR 2-110(A)(2), an attorney who withdraws from representation must deliver "to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled." ABA Informal Opinion No. 1461 (1980) makes it clear that DR 2-110(A)(2) was not intended to make the assertion of a retaining lien unethical. In fact, DR 5-103(A)(1) specifically recognizes that an attorney may ethically "[a]cquire a lien granted by law to secure his fee and expenses." *252 We now hold that the retaining lien recognized by the common law still exists in this State, and that an attorney's assertion of a retaining lien is not a per se violation of Supreme Court Rule 32.[1] An attorney must, however, consider whether the assertion of a retaining lien in a particular case would be unethical. Although it involved a somewhat different factual situation, Informal Opinion No. 1461 has summarized these ethical considerations in the following manner. In the present case, the respondent was apparently discharged without good cause. The client's case was not prejudiced by the delay in the transfer of the file. Under the circumstances, respondent's assertion of the retaining lien does not warrant the imposition of any sanction by this Court. Based on the foregoing discussion, we dismiss the complaint against the respondent. This order shall be published with the opinions of this Court. It is so ordered. [1] In In re Haddock, 283 S.C. 116, 321 S.E. (2d) 601 (1984), this Court held that an attorney must return a file to a client upon request. On first reading, this case appears to be inconsistent with the continued validity of retaining liens. However, the attorney in that case had no right to a retaining lien because the client had discharged him for good cause. 7A C.J.S. Attorney &amp; Client § 372 (1980); 7 Am. Jur. (2d) Attorneys at Law § 321 (1980). Therefore, that case did not involve the right of an attorney to assert an attorney's lien.