Opinion ID: 2755604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Panel's Finding of Misconduct

Text: Based on the above facts, the Panel found that Respondent committed misconduct as defined in Rule 7(a), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, by violating Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.3(a), 3.4, and 8.4(e), Rule 407, SCACR, and that Respondent is subject to discipline pursuant to Rules 7(a)(1) and (5), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. VII. Panel's Disciplinary Sanctions Recommendation The Panel held a hearing on sanctions at which both parties presented evidence on August 13–14, 2013. In considering the sanction recommendation, the Panel considered the following aggravating factors: (1) Respondent's multiple offenses and pattern of misconduct; (2) Respondent's failure to acknowledge the wrongfulness of her actions or express any remorse; (3) Respondent's indifference to her obligations to pay court-ordered sanctions; (4) Respondent's willful attempts to obstruct the 5 The appeal was pending at the time ODC filed the formal charges. The Court has since affirmed the circuit court. See Holmes v. Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, P.A., 408 S.C. 620, 760 S.E.2d 399 (2014). disciplinary process; and (5) Respondent's false statements in connection with these disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, the Panel considered the following mitigating factors: (1) Respondent's cooperation in the disciplinary process; (2) Respondent's lack of disciplinary history; and (3) the fact that some of Respondent's pleadings and appeals were filed with the assistance of counsel. The Panel explicitly rejected the following mitigating circumstances propounded by Respondent: (1) lack of dishonest or selfish motive; and (2) that there were delays in the disciplinary proceedings that were prejudicial to Respondent. Based on the foregoing, the Panel recommended that this Court disbar Respondent; order her to pay the costs of the disciplinary investigation and formal proceedings; and order her to pay restitution in the following amounts: 1. $90,000 plus interest pursuant to the August 2009 sanctions order; 2. $200,000 plus interest pursuant to the November 2009 sanctions order (pending affirmation of that sanctions order by the supreme court on appeal); and 3. $53,447.15 plus interest pursuant to the February 2012 sanctions order (pending affirmation of that sanctions order by the supreme court on appeal).