Opinion ID: 1310990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rucker-Taylor Matter

Text: Todd Hunnicutt (Mr. Hunnicutt) and Elizabeth Hunnicutt (Ms. Hunnicutt) were having marital problems. According to Respondent, in the late summer of 2000, Mr. Hunnicutt approached Respondent and told him that he and his wife were undergoing a Gestalt method of therapy. Mr. Hunnicutt asked Respondent to create a fictitious set of divorce documents to shock his wife as prescribed by the therapy. According to this method, Ms. Hunnicutt would be shocked into mending the marriage upon seeing the fictitious documents. [1] As requested, Respondent prepared the documents. He drafted a Summons and Complaint titled Elizabeth Stenzel Hunnicutt v. A. Todd Hunnicutt. The documents bore a fictitious docket number with the last three digits handwritten, a fictitious filing stamp for the Clerk of Court of Newberry County, and the signature of Mark J. Taylor, as Respondent purported to be. Respondent continued to draft documents that appeared authentic. [2] He drafted a fictitious Consent Order to Change Venue from Newberry to Lexington County. On the document, Respondent signed the names Mark J. Taylor and Warren Powell. [3] He also signed J. M. Rucker in the block designated presiding judge. Respondent then drafted a letter on his own letterhead, which purported to be written to Taylor, indicating that he, Respondent, was now representing Mr. Hunnicutt in the divorce. Respondent then prepared a false Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production. He signed his assistant's name to the certificate of mailing, purporting proper service of the Interrogatories. He then drafted a fictitious Request for Hearing form, bearing Mark J. Taylor as counsel for Ms. Hunnicutt. Respondent then prepared a handwritten letter on his letterhead addressed to Todd and attached a fictitious settlement agreement bearing the false docket numbers. The documents are entirely false and were never filed in any court. Respondent gave the documents to Mr. Hunnicutt. Ms. Hunnicutt found the documents in the trunk of Mr. Hunnicutt's car and was confused because she had not initiated the divorce action as suggested in the documents. She faxed the documents to a cousin in Missouri. The Missouri attorney confirmed that the documents appeared authentic and that a divorce action appeared to be underway. The Missouri attorney contacted Taylor and Judge Rucker, neither of whom knew about the matter. In turn, Taylor and Judge Rucker contacted the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. The Attorney General's Office joined this matter with the Jennifer Carmen matter and issued formal charges accordingly.