Opinion ID: 2502749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearing Panel's Report

Text: After conducting a hearing on July 14, 2011, the Panel issued its report on October 25, 2011. The Hearing Panel found Respondent basically admitted all of the allegations in the Formal Charges in his Answer to the Formal Charges.
The Hearing Panel found that Respondent's admitted acts constituted misconduct and that he had violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) contained in Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.); Rule 1.6(a) (A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).); Rule 8.4(a) (It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.); Rule 8.4(b) (It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.); Rule 8.4(e) (It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.). Additionally, the Hearing Panel concluded Respondent's conduct constituted grounds for discipline under the following provisions of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (It shall be a ground for discipline for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, or any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of lawyers.); Rule 7(a)(5) (It shall be a ground for discipline for a lawyer to engage in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law.).
In aggravation, the Hearing Panel considered that Respondent had committed several criminal offenses over an extended period of time. Specifically, the Panel noted that Respondent: (1) was charged with CDVHAN in 2004; (2) pled guilty to trespass and disorderly conduct in June 2008; and (3) pled guilty to possession of unlawful prescription drugs in April 2010. In mitigation, the Panel noted that Respondent had no prior disciplinary history and had a cooperative attitude throughout the proceedings. Additionally, the Panel took into consideration that Respondent admitted he is an alcoholic and prescription drug addict and that Respondent attributed his misconduct to that addiction. The Panel also recognized that Respondent was sober from January 1991 through July 2001, but thereafter experienced a relapse that lasted for several years, during which time this misconduct occurred. The Panel further found that Respondent's addiction to alcohol and drugs was the causative factor in his misconduct. Accordingly, the Panel considered Respondent's subsequent rehabilitation as a factor in mitigation. In support of this finding, the Panel referenced the testimony of William B. Waters and J. Robert Turnbull, Jr. Waters stated that he had known Respondent for approximately forty years. He testified that in June 2009 he received a telephone call from Respondent during which Respondent confided that he was addicted to prescription drugs. Waters further testified that he has remained close with Respondent throughout his recovery period and is confident that Respondent is currently sober. Turnbull, who is the Director of LHL, testified that Respondent has been in frequent contact with him since June 2009 when Respondent called and admitted his prescription drug problem. Turnbull testified he believed Respondent is sober and that his rehabilitation is going well. He further testified that Respondent is willing to enter into a contract with LHL so that his continued rehabilitation can be monitored.
The Hearing Panel recommended that Respondent: (1) receive an Admonition; (2) be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings; and (3) be required to enter into a contract with LHL and to file quarterly treatment compliance reports with the Commission for a period of three years.