Opinion ID: 1212265
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mischaracterization in Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

Text: Respondent first argues the panel erred in finding he violated Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, in Matter III by mischaracterizing the basis for his request to be relieved as counsel. In the motion he filed with the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Respondent stated the client had proceeded on her own without the advice or knowledge of counsel. Respondent asserts the panel found the statement was true and the report on its face demonstrates that ODC failed to establish this violation by clear and convincing evidence. We agree. The subpanel noted that the client in Matter III had filed a pro se notice of appeal during Respondent's hospitalization and that Respondent did not know [the client] had done this and did not advise her about it at the time because of his medical condition. The subpanel found Respondent's statement in his motion was truthful: We note that the statement in the motion to be relieved as counsel was true. [The client] did, in fact, proceed to actually file the appeal without the advice or knowledge of the Respondent. He was in the hospital incommunicado at the time. The subpanel further found, however, that Respondent did advise his client about an appeal at some point, even if he did not do so at the time the client actually filed a notice of appeal. The subpanel noted: In fact, [the client] had received advice from Respondent that she could appeal, but that he would not be able to represent her on appeal. The subpanel concluded, and the panel agreed, that Respondent had, therefore, violated Rule 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal): With regard to Rule 3.3, we find it likely that Respondent mischaracterized the grounds for his motion to be relieved in [the client's] appeal as her conduct in proceeding `on her own without the advice or knowledge of counsel' when[] she was likely proceeding on Respondent's advice and with his knowledge. The subpanel's finding that Respondent likely mischaracterized the ground for his motion to be relieved does not meet the clear and convincing standard of proof. This is especially true in light of the fact that the subpanel found Respondent's statement that he did not know about the client's decision to proceed with a pro se appeal was, in fact, true. The subpanel implied that Respondent's statement was a mischaracterization because he spoke to the client about an appeal at some point, although not necessarily when she decided to proceed pro se. We conclude Respondent's statement simply advised the tribunal that he had no involvement in the client's filing of a pro se appeal and that there is no sanctionable conduct in this instance.