In re Curlin

565 S.E.2d 762, 350 S.C. 210, 2002 S.C. LEXIS 175
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 19, 2002
StatusPublished

This text of 565 S.E.2d 762 (In re Curlin) 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 Curlin, 565 S.E.2d 762, 350 S.C. 210, 2002 S.C. LEXIS 175 (S.C. 2002).

Opinion

ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has filed a petition asking this Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and seeking the appointment of an attorney to protect clients’ interests pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s license to practice law in this State is suspended until further order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kenneth E. Ormand, Jr., Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent’s client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain. Mr. Ormand shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent’s clients. Mr. Ormand may make disbursements from respondent’s trust aecount(s), escrow account(s), [211]*211operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating accounts of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Kenneth E. Ormand, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Kenneth E. Ormand, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent’s mail and the authority to direct that respondent’s mail be delivered to Mr. Ormand’s office.

/s/ Jean H. Toal, C.J.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
565 S.E.2d 762, 350 S.C. 210, 2002 S.C. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-curlin-sc-2002.