In re Brown

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In re Brown

484 S.E.2d 875, 326 S.C. 138, 1997 S.C. LEXIS 86

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 28, 1997

DocketNo. 24612

StatusPublished

This text of 484 S.E.2d 875 (In re Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Brown, 484 S.E.2d 875, 326 S.C. 138, 1997 S.C. LEXIS 86 (S.C. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Respondent formerly served as a Greenville Municipal Court Administrative Judge. In this judicial disciplinary matter, respondent admits that while serving as a municipal court judge, he committed ethical violations. He consents to a public reprimand. We accept respondent’s admission and publicly reprimand him.

The misconduct is based on an arrest warrant served on respondent charging him with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Respondent admits to the allegations in the arrest warrant. Respondent has committed misconduct under Rule 501, SCACR, Code of Judicial Conduct ’Canons 1, 2, and 2(A). Since he no longer holds judicial office, the most severe sanction available is a public reprimand. Matter of Gravely, 321 S.C. 235, 467 S.E.2d 924 (1996). Accordingly, we publicly reprimand respondent for his conduct.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Respondent formerly served as a Greenville Municipal Court Administrative Judge. In this judicial disciplinary matter, respondent admits that while serving as a municipal court judge, he committed ethical violations. He consents to a public reprimand. We accept respondent’s admission and publicly reprimand him.

The misconduct is based on an arrest warrant served on respondent charging him with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Respondent admits to the allegations in the arrest warrant. Respondent has committed misconduct under Rule 501, SCACR, Code of Judicial Conduct ’Canons 1, 2, and 2(A). Since he no longer holds judicial office, the most severe sanction available is a public reprimand. Matter of Gravely, 321 S.C. 235, 467 S.E.2d 924 (1996). Accordingly, we publicly reprimand respondent for his conduct.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 S.E.2d 875, 326 S.C. 138, 1997 S.C. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brown-sc-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack