Opinion ID: 2500868
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of the State Court System and Disciplinary Proceedings

Text: Although Respondent raises seven separate exceptions, his primary contention is that the Panel Report is invalid or void due to procedural and substantive deficiencies. Specifically, Respondent challenges: (1) the propriety of the state court system as well as the disciplinary proceedings, and (2) the level of proof supporting the findings of misconduct. Thus, in the interest of clarity and logical progression, we have addressed Respondent's exceptions under these two headings and out of the order presented in his brief.
In challenging the propriety of the state court system, Respondent claims he offered evidence that the allegations of misconduct were precipitated by irregularities and corruption within the state court system. As to the disciplinary proceedings, Respondent directs this Court's attention to the following: (1) the ODC's four-year delay in filing formal charges after Respondent's Interim Suspension; (2) the Hearing Panel's failure to grant Respondent's request for additional discovery time; (3) the appointment and conduct of Robert Bogan as the Special Prosecutor; [9] (4) the conduct of the panel hearing, which included the Hearing Panel's decision to quash Respondent's subpoenas of key witnesses and to question witnesses; and (5) the Hearing Panel's delay in filing the Panel Report. Based on these claimed procedural irregularities, Respondent asserts that the entire disciplinary proceeding violated his procedural and substantive rights to due process in the suspension of his license to practice law in this state. As a threshold matter, we note that Respondent for the first time on appeal challenges the appointment of Robert Bogan as a Special Prosecutor [10] and the Panel's method of questioning witnesses during the hearing. [11] Accordingly, we find these arguments are not properly before this Court. See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.). In view of the foregoing, our analysis turns to assessing the merits of Respondent's remaining claims that involve the limitation of time allotted for discovery, the quashing of Respondent's subpoenas for key witnesses, and the timeliness of the filing of the Panel Report.
Respondent contends the Hearing Panel improperly refused to extend the time period for discovery. Specifically, Respondent submits that the time period for the completion of discovery is so limited in terms of sixty days that the hearing and discovery process in this action was completely prejudicial to the Respondent and tantamount to an unconstitutional application of the law. As we interpret Respondent's argument, he essentially challenges the Hearing Panel's denial of his motion for additional time to complete discovery, which was incorporated into Respondent's Answer to the Formal Charges and clarified in a subsequent motion in which Respondent requested 480 days of discovery (sixty days for each of the eight misconduct allegations). Initially, we note the chairman was authorized to deny Respondent's motion pursuant to Rule 14(b)(1) of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. [12] Furthermore, we find that Respondent was not prejudiced by this decision. Respondent's request for a 480-day period of discovery was clearly excessive and not contemplated by Rule 14 as the time for discovery is sixty days [13] with the possibility of a thirty-day extension. Respondent was also afforded a significant amount of time for discovery as he was served with the formal charges on March 10, 2009, discovery was extended until July 29, 2009, and a pre-hearing conference was held on January 4, 2010, at which time Respondent's motion was denied. [14] At the pre-hearing conference, the panel chair granted Respondent additional time to issue subpoenas for documents. Significantly, Respondent waited until eight days before the panel hearing to issue subpoenas. Taking into consideration this procedural history, we find Respondent cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the denial of his motion for additional time for discovery.
In a related argument, Respondent contends the Hearing Panel committed error in quashing the subpoenas he issued for the Honorable Paul M. Burch and the Honorable Jean Hoefer Toal to produce certain documents and to appear at the panel hearing. [15] In quashing the subpoenas, the Hearing Panel relied on Rule 45 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets forth the requirements for the form, issuance, and service of subpoenas. Based on the provisions of Rule 45, the Hearing Panel found the subpoenas were not timely served and Respondent failed to comply with requirements of witness fees and mileage expenses as to Judge Burch. Additionally, the Hearing Panel found Respondent had failed to demonstrate that the testimony was critical to his case or that it could not be obtained by other means. Respondent asserts that the provisions of Rule 45 were inapplicable to the disciplinary proceedings. Instead, he contends that Rule 15 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement [16] is the governing rule as it specifically applies to subpoenas in disciplinary proceedings. We find the Hearing Panel correctly quashed the subpoenas based on Respondent's failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 45, SCRCP. Rule 15 authorizes an accused lawyer to request the subpoena of witnesses and documents during the discovery period. Notably, Rule 15 does not include any procedural requirements regarding these subpoenas. Rule 9 of the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, however, incorporates the Rules of Civil Procedure in disciplinary proceedings, stating [e]xcept as otherwise provided in these rules . . . the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure apply in lawyer discipline cases . . . when formal charges have been filed. Rule 9, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Respondent clearly did not comply with the provisions of Rule 45 as the service of the subpoenas on Judge Burch and Chief Justice Toal was untimely. Furthermore, Respondent has never articulated how the testimony of Chief Justice Toal was necessary to his case. Although it is a closer question whether Judge Burch could have been a material witness as he was involved in certain allegations of misconduct, we conclude that his failure to testify did not prejudice Respondent given all of the documentary evidence related to these misconduct allegations was offered into evidence.
As to the timeliness of the Panel Report, we find the Hearing Panel filed its Panel Report in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure. As Respondent correctly notes, Rule 26(d) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement requires the Hearing Panel to submit the record and its report to the Supreme Court within sixty days after the filing of the transcript of a hearing. This time period, however, may be extended by the chair of the Commission pursuant to Rule 14(b)(1) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. This rule further authorizes the chair to grant extensions beyond thirty days if good cause is shown. Despite these provisions, Respondent contends that an extension beyond six months required the permission of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 14, the chair was the proper authority to grant the extension as Rule 14(b)(4) states, [e]xcept for those periods of time that may be extended by the Commission under (1) above, the Supreme Court . . . may grant an extension of time to perform any act required by these Rules. Rule 14(b)(4), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR; see In re Crews, 389 S.C. 322, 336, 698 S.E.2d 785, 792 (2010) (recognizing that Rule 14(b)(1) grants the chair of the Commission broad powers to extend or shorten time periods in disciplinary hearings). Furthermore, this Court implicitly granted the Hearing Panel's request for an extension as we issued an order on July 30, 2010, denying Respondent's motion to dismiss with prejudice due to the untimeliness of the filing of the Panel Report. Finally, any delay in the filing of the Panel Report has been taken into consideration by this Court as a factor in mitigation; thus, we can discern no prejudice to Respondent.
Respondent claims the above-outlined procedural irregularities and Panel decisions culminated in a denial of his right to due process in the suspension of his license to practice law in this State for over 5 years. When the State seeks to revoke a professional license, procedural due process rights must be met. Zaman v. S.C. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 305 S.C. 281, 284, 408 S.E.2d 213, 215 (1991). However, [o]ne cannot complain of a due process violation if he has recourse to a constitutionally sufficient administrative procedure but merely declines or fails to take advantage of it. Id. at 285, 408 S.E.2d at 215. We find that Respondent's rights to due process were not violated by the disciplinary proceedings. Initially, we note that this Court was authorized to place Respondent on Interim Suspension based on the ODC's petition involving the Medical Record Matter. [17] In turn, the ODC properly served Respondent with the formal charges. Respondent was then given an opportunity to retain counsel, answer the charges, and engage in discovery. During the panel hearing, the Panel allowed Respondent to cross-examine the ODC's witnesses and challenge its evidence. Additionally, Respondent presented his own evidence in his defense of the misconduct allegations. Although there was delay in the filing of the Panel Report, the Respondent has been given an opportunity to challenge it before this Court through briefs and oral arguments. Based on the foregoing, we conclude there was no due process violation as Respondent was provided notice, an opportunity to be heard, and judicial review. See In re Vora, 354 S.C. 590, 595, 582 S.E.2d 413, 416 (2003) (Procedural due process requirements are not technical; no particular form of procedure is necessary. The United States Supreme Court has held, however, that at a minimum certain elements must be present. These include (1) adequate notice; (2) adequate opportunity for a hearing; (3) the right to introduce evidence; and (4) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. (citation omitted)); Kurschner v. City of Camden Planning Comm'n, 376 S.C. 165, 171, 656 S.E.2d 346, 350 (2008) (stating [t]he fundamental requirements of due process include notice, an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way, and judicial review).
Respondent contends the findings of the Hearing Panel are without evidentiary support because the ODC did not satisfy its burden to prove the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In support of this contention, Respondent avers that the Hearing Panel merely accept[ed] as true the claims of misconduct by the ODC, which were primarily based on circuit court orders that were challenged by Respondent. Essentially, Respondent asserts that the ODC did not present any independent evidence to substantiate the allegations of misconduct. Furthermore, Respondent argues the Hearing Panel failed to consider and include all of the mitigating factors in favor of Respondent. Although we give some credence to Respondent's claims concerning procedural irregularities in the state court system and the disciplinary proceedings, we find that these deficiencies do not warrant the invalidation of the Panel Report. However, we agree in part with Respondent's arguments as we find the ODC only proved three of the eight allegations of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, as will be discussed, we find the ODC presented clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed misconduct with respect to the following: the Medical Record Matter, the Fee Dispute Matter, and the Samuel Matter.
Deferring to the credibility determinations of the Hearing Panel, we find there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed misconduct in creating the document that appeared to be a medical record. Facially, the document is formatted similar to that of the Byerly Hospital report and even includes the client's vital signs, thus, giving it the appearance of a medical record. Respondent included the document in the settlement package to the Unisun claims representative and to Orr without alerting them to the fact that the document was not a medical record. Although it is disputable whether the defense attorneys in the 1998 automobile accident case relied on this document in reaching their settlement agreements, it is evident that Respondent created the document with the intention of establishing that the client's heart condition was caused by the 1995 automobile accident. Given that there were no medical records in evidence to support this causal relation, we agree with the Panel's conclusion that Respondent's creation of this document constituted misconduct. [18] See In re Pennington, 380 S.C. 49, 668 S.E.2d 402 (2008) (imposing definite suspension of two years where attorney committed several acts of misconduct, which included the submission of false documents to ODC); In re Lathan, 360 S.C. 326, 600 S.E.2d 902 (2004) (finding definite suspension of six months, retroactive to Interim Suspension, was warranted where attorney committed misconduct arising out of false HUD-1 Settlement Statements); In re Belding, 356 S.C. 319, 325, 589 S.E.2d 197, 200 (2003) (concluding one-year suspension was appropriate where attorney drafted false documents and made a conscious effort to make the documents appear authentic).
We find there is clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of misconduct as to the Fee Dispute Matter. On September 9, 2002, the South Carolina Bar Fee Disputes Resolution Board (Board) notified Respondent of its final decision that Wright was entitled to a fee refund in the amount of $1,750. Respondent, however, continues to dispute the validity of this award based on irregularities in the fee dispute proceedings. Essentially, Respondent claims that he did not have to respond to the fee dispute investigation as he believed the client had filed a separate complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Furthermore, he asserts that the Chairman of the Board had a conflict and, thus, should have been disqualified in the proceedings. Although there may be some merit to Respondent's assertions, they are of no consequence at this stage in the proceedings since Respondent had the opportunity to raise these issues in circuit court. He failed to file a brief and failed to appear at the hearing, thus, effectively waiving any challenge to the finality of the fee award. Moreover, despite clear language in the Rules, which instruct that the circuit court was the final appellate level, Respondent proceeded to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. Even after the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal and this Court denied Respondent's petition for a writ of certiorari in 2007, Respondent still has not tendered the fee award to his client and, thus, has willfully failed to comply with a final decision of the Board. Accordingly, we agree with the Hearing Panel's finding of misconduct as to this allegation. See In re Danielson, 391 S.C. 386, 706 S.E.2d 1 (2011) (imposing two-year suspension where lawyer committed numerous acts of misconduct, including failure to comply with a Final Decision of the Board); In re Thomson, 389 S.C. 24, 698 S.E.2d 625 (2010) (issuing public reprimand where lawyer failed to pay fee that was ordered by the Board).
Of the three findings of misconduct based on Respondent's failure to prosecute, we find only the Samuel Matter was proven by clear and convincing evidence. Approximately one year after filing the medical malpractice lawsuit, the circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants due to Respondent's failure to provide potential experts and their affidavits. The court also dismissed the case due to Respondent's failure to appear at scheduled hearings and his request for a continuance in violation of a court order. Once summary judgment was granted any other reason for dismissal was superfluous. Moreover, a litigant cannot be barred from requesting a continuance. A judge only has the option to grant or deny it. The granting of summary judgment in a medical malpractice case for failure to produce an expert witness is not unusual and would not normally result in disciplinary action for failure to prosecute the case. However, Respondent never informed Samuel of the reason for the dismissal, but only communicated that the case was on appeal. Respondent also failed to maintain contact with Samuel and never informed her that the Court of Appeals had affirmed the circuit court's order, this Court had denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, or that he had been placed on Interim Suspension. In fact, Samuel testified that she was apprised of the status of her case two weeks before the panel hearing when she talked with Bogan about her testimony. Accordingly, we find there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed misconduct with respect to the Samuel Matter. See In re Longtin, 393 S.C. 368, 713 S.E.2d 297 (2011) (concluding nine-month suspension was warranted, in part, by lawyer's failure to prosecute cases adequately on behalf of his clients, to follow orders of the court, and to respond to his clients); In re Moore, 329 S.C. 294, 494 S.E.2d 804 (1997) (finding definite suspension of one year was appropriate, in part, where lawyer's neglect resulted in dismissal of client's case for lack of prosecution); In re Baldwin, 278 S.C. 292, 294 S.E.2d 790 (1982) (concluding indefinite suspension was warranted where lawyer failed to appear at scheduled court hearings).
Finally, Respondent contends the Hearing Panel failed to consider and include in its report all of the mitigating factors in favor of Respondent. We find this contention to be without merit as Respondent has presented the additional mitigating factors in his brief to this Court. In reaching our decision, we have considered all mitigating factors that Respondent deems significant.