Court Opinion

ID: 9574921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:09:36.166118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:24.852455
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Justice
(concurring and dissenting) :
I agree with the per curiam opinion which holds that the respondent is guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 2-103 and 2-104 of Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Supreme Court Rule 32, which prohibit solicitation *37of business by a member of the bar. I concur in the majority opinion which holds, “. . . we find respondent’s actions reprehensible in stirring up litigation, in bringing the legal profession into disrepute, and by intruding himself and his employee into people’s privacy, especially those recovering from accidents and the loss of loved ones, . . . .”
In my view, the Board’s recommendation that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law is warranted and should be accepted.
In the case of In re Crosby, 256 S. C. 325, 182 S. E. (2d) 289 (1971), which involved solicitations, this Court rejected the recommendation of the Board that the respondent be indefinitely suspended, and ordered a public reprimand. I dissented.
In In re Bloom, 265 S. C. 86, 217 S. E. (2d) 143 (1975), which involved a matter of solicitation, I reluctantly accepted the recommendation of the Board that a public reprimand be administered.
In the case now before us, the Board has recommended that the respondent, Samuel C. Craven, be indefinitely suspended. I find nothing in the record to warrant a rejection of this recommendation. To me, it is clear that the respondent used Mr. Gantlin over a long period of time as a “runner” to “drum up” lawsuits for his office. The theory that Mr. Gantlin was a farm worker, occasionally of his own volition routing business to Mr. Craven, is incredible. It is clear to me that Gantlin was not a farm worker helping the office on the side, but was an office worker, perhaps farming on the side. Gantlin was equipped with a one-way radio beeper, enabling the two to keep in close contact. Their system of operation was well-planned and designed to stir up litigation and attract business. In this regard, it was obviously successful.
I dissent from that portion of the per curiam opinion which rejects the recommendation of the Board, and would adopt the same as the appropriate disposition of this case.