Opinion ID: 6496173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: LinkedIn Profile

Text: Following the hearing before the Committee, an additional matter involving dishonesty came to light. During Applicant's third year of law school, he worked as a law clerk with a local law firm. In January of that year, Applicant accepted an offer to become an associate attorney with the firm pending his admission to the bar. While awaiting the results of the bar examination, Applicant began working for the firm as a law clerk. In October 2021, this Court notified Applicant he achieved a passing score on the bar examination but remained ineligible to be admitted because the Committee had not yet completed its investigation. Upon receiving the Court's letter, Applicant updated his publicly-available LinkedIn profile to reflect that he was employed as an associate attorney at the law firm. Applicant has never been admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction or any other. 4 4 Notwithstanding his false representations online, there is no evidence any member of the public ever solicited legal services from Applicant or that Applicant ever engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. See S.C. Code Ann. § 40-5-310 (2011 & Supp. 2021) (providing a person who engages in the unauthorized practice of law in this state is guilty of a felony and subject to a $5,000 fine and five years South Carolina, like other jurisdictions, limits the practice of law to licensed attorneys. Brown v. Coe, 365 S.C. 137, 139, 616 S.E.2d 705, 706 (2005). The goal of the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law is to protect the public from incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representations. Id., 365 S.C. at 139, 616 S.E.2d at 707 (citation omitted). This Court's regulation of the practice of law is not for the purpose of creating a monopoly in the legal profession, nor for its protection, but to assure the public adequate protection in the pursuit of justice, by preventing the intrusion of incompetent and unlearned persons in the practice of law. Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 420 S.C. 452, 459-60, 803 S.E.2d 707, 711 (2017). When questioned by this Court about his decision to hold himself out as an attorney untruthfully, Applicant explained he was proud to learn he had passed the bar examination, and in that excitement, he changed his LinkedIn profile to reflect his achievement. Applicant admitted that, at the time he updated his profile, he was employed as a law clerk, that he was neither an associate nor an attorney, and that his representation on LinkedIn was false. Applicant acknowledged that his actions jeopardized not only his own prospects for bar admission, but also risked the law firm's reputation and could have misled members of the public.5 In maintaining the content of his LinkedIn profile, Applicant was, at all times, responsible for all the information incorporated in his profile, including ensuring all content was accurate and truthful.6 Applicant's actions in holding himself out as in prison). To the extent any member of the public had been misled, the outcome of this matter would almost certainly be different. 5 Applicant submitted affidavits from the chief operating officer and the current and former managing members of the law firm, all of which described Applicant's role with and work for the firm. Based on these affidavits and Applicant's sworn testimony to this Court, we conclude Applicant has consistently received appropriate supervision by the firm's attorneys. See Rule 5.3, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring supervisory attorneys to take reasonable measures to ensure that non-lawyers in the firm act in a way that is compatible with the Rules of Professional Conduct). 6 This includes correcting, deleting, or disclaiming any false or misleading entries or endorsements made by third parties relating to an applicant or lawyer's practice of law. Cf. Rule 7.1, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (prohibiting false, misleading, or deceptive communications about a lawyer or a lawyer's services); In re an attorney without having been admitted to practice law raises serious questions about whether Applicant possesses the requisite honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law. See Rule 402(c)(2), SCACR (establishing an applicant must be of good moral character to be eligible for admission to practice law). When considered alongside Applicant's history of non- and half-disclosures on his law school application, this most recent instance of misleading conduct is particularly troubling.