Court Opinion

ID: 9379385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 15:08:22.867786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.580171
License: Public Domain

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                       In The Supreme Court

            In the Matter of Cooper C. Lynn, Respondent.

            Appellate Case No. 2023-000028

                             Opinion No. 28140
              Submitted February 23, 2023 – Filed March 15, 2023

                                 DISBARRED

            Disciplinary Counsel John S. Nichols and Senior
            Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Ericka M. Williams, both
            of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

            Cooper C. Lynn, of Darlington, Pro Se.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by
Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary
Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court
Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct, consents to
disbarment, and agrees to pay restitution and costs. We accept the Agreement and
disbar Respondent from the practice of law in this state.

                                       I.

On August 23, 2019, Respondent was placed on interim suspension after he
admitted failing to hold unearned fees in trust. In re Lynn, 427 S.C. 577, 832
S.E.2d 608 (2019). Formal charges were filed against Respondent on February 10,
2022, alleging misconduct as set forth in eight disciplinary complaints received
between 2018 and 2020. In the Agreement, Respondent admits the material facts
alleged in the formal charges.
                                      Matter A

Husband and Wife (Clients) gave Respondent $70,000 to settle claims concerning
the closure of their South Carolina business. Pursuant to the fee agreement,
$10,000 was for legal fees and the remaining $60,000 was for the resolution of
pending claims against Clients' company. Respondent failed to timely provide an
accounting and a refund of unused funds upon Clients' request in violation of Rule
1.15(d), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds to
third parties and promptly render a full accounting upon request by the client or
third party). Respondent disputed the amount due to Clients; however, Respondent
failed to hold both unearned fees and disputed funds in his trust account as
required by Rules 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to safeguard and not commingle
funds) and 1.15(e), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to hold disputed
property in trust until the dispute is resolved). 1

On January 31, 2019, Clients filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy trustee (Trustee) asserted that up
to $56,000 of the disputed funds that Respondent received from Clients belonged
to Clients' bankruptcy estate and should be paid to Trustee. In an effort to avoid
litigation, Respondent and Trustee agreed that Respondent would pay Trustee a
total of $12,000 in equal installments of $500 per month beginning on October 1,
2019. Respondent failed to make any of the agreed payments.

In addition to the above-cited rules, Respondent admits his conduct in this matter
also violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR:
Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct) and Rule
8.4(e) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). In the
Agreement, Respondent agrees to pay $12,000 in restitution to Clients.

1
  Although not referenced in the Agreement or formal charges, we observe
Respondent's failure to hold unearned fees in trust in this matter also likely violated
Rule 1.15(c) RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, which requires unearned fees to be held in
trust absent a written agreement under Rule 1.5(f), RPC, treating the fees as
immediately earned.
                                     Matter B

Respondent represented Client B in a domestic matter. At times during the
representation, Respondent failed to adequately communicate with Client B
regarding the status of the case. Specifically, between August 2018 and November
2018, Client B made repeated reasonable requests for a status update, but
Respondent did not provide any response until December 10, 2018, and that
response was incomplete. Respondent admits his actions in this matter violated the
following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.4 (requiring a
lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and
requiring prompt compliance with reasonable requests for information); and Rule
8.4(a) (prohibiting violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct).

                                     Matter C

Respondent engaged a law firm to assist him with representing Client C in a
medical malpractice action. On February 22, 2016, a settlement in the medical
malpractice action was approved, allocating $300,000 to a wrongful death claim
and $50,000 to a survival claim. After all attorneys' fees and costs were disbursed,
Respondent received $175,607.95 from the assisting law firm as net settlement
proceeds due to Client C for both the wrongful death and the survival claim.
Respondent returned $4,823.31 of that amount to the assisting law firm to satisfy a
Medicaid lien and then issued a check to Client C in the amount of $120,784.64.
Respondent retained the $50,000 allocated to the survival action and informed
Client C that the proceeds would be disbursed in a separate probate action.

Respondent failed to diligently pursue the probate action in violation of Rule 1.3,
RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to diligently pursue a client's cause).
Respondent failed to disburse the $50,000 allocated to the survival action to Client
C or to the probate court in violation of Rule 1.15(d), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR
(requiring prompt delivery of funds held in trust). Respondent admits that, instead,
he misappropriated the $50,000 for his personal use in violation of the following
Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.15(a) (requiring a
lawyer to safekeep funds held in trust); Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting violations of the
Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 8.4(b) (prohibiting criminal acts that reflect
adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer); Rule
8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(e) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).
After formal charges were filed against Respondent, Client C recovered $40,000
from the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection as reimbursement for losses caused
by Respondent's dishonest conduct. See Rule 411(c)(1), SCACR (limiting the
recovery of each applicant to $40,000). In the Agreement, Respondent agrees to
pay restitution in the amount of $10,000 to Client C.

                                     Matter D

Respondent represented Client D in a domestic matter. Respondent failed to
adequately communicate with Client D regarding the status of the case.
Specifically, Client D attempted for over a month to contact Respondent by email
or telephone call to obtain a status update, but Respondent did not respond and his
voice mailbox was full. Respondent admits his failure to communicate with Client
D violated Rule 1.4, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the matter and requiring prompt
compliance with reasonable requests for information). Respondent also admits he
failed to diligently pursue Client D's action in violation of Rule 1.3, RPC, Rule
407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to diligently pursue a client's cause). Further,
Respondent admits that following his interim suspension on August 23, 2019, he
failed to refund unearned fees to Client D in violation of Rule 1.16(d), RPC, Rule
407, SCACR (requiring that upon termination of representation, a lawyer must
refund payment of any unearned fee or expense that has not been incurred).

                                     Matter E

Client E retained Respondent in 2014 to represent him in a civil action. Client E
died in 2016, and his wife was appointed personal representative of the estate. On
April 16, 2019, Respondent received a settlement check in the amount of $30,000.
Respondent failed to disburse the settlement funds to the probate court or to Client
E's estate in violation of Rule 1.15(d), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring prompt
delivery of funds held in trust). Rather, Respondent admits he misappropriated the
settlement funds for his own use in violation of the following Rules of Professional
Conduct: Rule 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to safekeep funds held in trust); Rule
8.4(a) (prohibiting violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 8.4(b)
(prohibiting criminal acts that reflect adversely on a lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer); Rule 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(e) (prohibiting
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

                                     Matter F
Respondent represented Client F regarding the estate of his deceased mother.
Respondent and Client F executed a fee agreement in July 2014, providing for the
retainer fee of $5,000 with an hourly rate of $200 to be billed against that retainer
fee. When the issues in the case became more complicated than originally
contemplated, Respondent and Client F executed a second fee agreement for the
payment of an additional $2,000 retainer at the same hourly rate. Respondent
failed to retain $1,229.24 in unearned fees in his trust account in violation of Rule
1.15(a), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to safekeep funds held in
trust). 2 After having retained Respondent in July 2014, Client F learned in October
2019 that Respondent had failed to diligently pursue Client F's matter in violation
of Rule 1.3, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to diligently pursue a
client's cause).

Respondent was also in possession of $22,639.78 received from the decedent's
checking account and approximately $45,000 from the sale of the decedent's
residence. Respondent failed to disburse any of these estate funds to the probate
court or to the beneficiaries of the estate in violation of Rule 1.15(d), RPC, Rule
407, SCACR (requiring prompt delivery of funds held in trust). Rather,
Respondent admits he misappropriated the funds for his own use in violation of the
following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to
safekeep funds held in trust); Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct); Rule 8.4(b) (prohibiting criminal acts that reflect adversely
on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer); Rule 8.4(d)
(prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and
Rule 8.4(e) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

On October 22, 2019, ODC mailed Respondent a notice of investigation requesting
a response within fifteen days. On November 26, 2019, ODC sent Respondent a
letter pursuant to In re Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982), reminding
Respondent that his response was overdue. Respondent did not submit a response
until November 30, 2020—more than a year after it was due. Respondent admits
his failure to timely respond to the notice of investigation violated Rule 8.1(b),
RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond

2
  Again, though not referenced in the Agreement or formal charges, we observe
Respondent's failure to hold unearned fees in trust in this matter also likely violated
Rule 1.15(c) RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, which requires unearned fees to be held in
trust absent a written agreement under Rule 1.5(f), RPC, treating the fees as
immediately earned.
to an ODC inquiry).

                                     Matter G

Respondent represented Client G in a domestic matter. Respondent failed to
adequately communicate with Client G about the status of the case. Specifically,
between February 2018 and August 2019, Client G attempted to contact
Respondent for reasonable updates on the matter but received no response.
Respondent admits his failure to communicate with Client G violated Rule 1.4,
RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed
about the status of the matter and requiring prompt compliance with reasonable
requests for information).

Additionally, the family court ruled in Client G's favor in February 2018, but as of
August 2019, Respondent had not provided a proposed order for the family court.
Respondent admits he failed to diligently pursue Client G's matter in violation of
Rule 1.3, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to diligently pursue a client's
cause).

On January 9, 2020, ODC mailed Respondent a notice of investigation requesting a
response within fifteen days. On February 5, 2020, ODC sent Respondent a
Treacy letter reminding Respondent that his response was overdue. Respondent
did not submit a response until May 21, 2020. Respondent admits his failure to
timely respond to the notice of investigation violated Rule 8.1(b), RPC, Rule 407,
SCACR (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to an ODC
inquiry).

                                     Matter H

Respondent represented Client H in a domestic matter. After Client H engaged
Respondent in December 2018, there was limited contact with Respondent, and
after March 2019, Respondent failed to respond at all to any of Client H's
reasonable requests for information. Respondent admits his conduct violated Rule
1.4, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring prompt compliance with reasonable
requests for information). Further, as of August 2019, Respondent had done little
to no work on Client H's matter, and Client H had to hire new counsel.
Respondent admits he failed to diligently pursue Client H's matter in violation of
Rule 1.3, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring a lawyer to diligently pursue a client's
cause).
On January 15, 2020, ODC mailed Respondent a notice of investigation requesting
a response within fifteen days. On February 7, 2020, ODC sent Respondent a
Treacy letter reminding Respondent that his response was overdue. Respondent
did not submit a response until May 21, 2020. Respondent admits his failure to
timely respond to the notice of investigation violated Rule 8.1(b), RPC, Rule 407,
SCACR (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to an ODC
inquiry).

                                         II.

Respondent admits his misconduct as set forth above is grounds for discipline
under the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413,
SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (providing a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct
is a ground for discipline); Rule 7(a)(3) (providing a knowing failure to respond to
an ODC inquiry is a ground for discipline); Rule 7(a)(5) (providing conduct
demonstrating an unfitness to practice law is a ground for discipline); and Rule
7(a)(6) (providing a violation of the Lawyers' Oath is a ground for discipline). See
Rule 402(h)(3), SCACR (requiring faithfulness, competence, diligence, good
judgment, and prompt communication of all lawyers licensed to practice in South
Carolina).

In the Agreement, Respondent consents to disbarment and requests that it be
imposed retroactively to the date of his interim suspension on August 23, 2019. As
a condition of discipline, Respondent also agrees to pay costs, as well as $12,000
in restitution to Clients in Matter A, $10,000 in restitution to Client C, and
$133,960 to reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection for sums paid on
Respondent's behalf. Prior to seeking readmission, Respondent agrees to attend the
Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and Trust Account School.
Respondent presented no evidence in mitigation of his misconduct.

On December 8, 2022, this matter was submitted to a hearing panel of the
Commission on Lawyer Conduct, which unanimously recommended that the Court
accept the Agreement and disbar Respondent retroactive to the date of his interim
suspension.

                                        III.

"This Court has never regarded financial misconduct lightly, particularly when
such misconduct concerns expenditure of client funds or other improper use of
trust funds." In re Wern, 431 S.C. 643, 649, 849 S.E.2d 898, 901 (2020) (citation
omitted) (disbarring an attorney for misappropriating trust account funds). In light
of Respondent's admitted pattern of financial misconduct and client neglect, we
find disbarment is the appropriate sanction. See In re Locklair, 418 S.C. 467, 795
S.E.2d 9 (2016) (disbarring an attorney for failing to communicate with clients,
failing to handle client matters diligently, and misappropriating funds that should
have been held in trust).

Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and disbar Respondent from the practice of
law in this state, retroactive to his interim suspension on August 23, 2019. Within
thirty days of the date of this opinion, Respondent shall enter into an agreement
with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct to pay: (1) $12,000 in restitution to
Clients in Matter A; (2) $10,000 in restitution to Client C; (3) $133,906.55 to the
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection; and (4) the costs incurred in the investigation
and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission. Within fifteen days
of the date of this opinion, Respondent shall surrender his Certificate of Admission
to the Practice of Law to the Clerk of this Court. Prior to seeking readmission,
Respondent must attend the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and
Trust Account School.

DISBARRED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.