In re Hammer

828 S.E.2d 767, 427 S.C. 14
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided June 3, 2019·No. Appellate Case No. 2017-001062·Published

Opinion

By opinion dated March 30, 2016, this Court suspended Petitioner from the practice of law for one year. In re Hammer , 415 S.C. 610, 784 S.E.2d 678 (2016). Petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 33, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. After referral, the Committee on Character and Fitness filed a report and recommendation recommending the Court reinstate Petitioner to the practice of law. We find petitioner has met the requirements of Rule 33(f), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Accordingly, we grant the petition for reinstatement.

**15s/Donald W. Beatty, C.J.

s/John W. Kittredge, J.

s/Kaye G. Hearn, J.

s/George C. James, Jr., J.

I would deny the petition for reinstatement.

s/ John Cannon Few, J.

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

In re Hammer, 828 S.E.2d 767, 427 S.C. 14 (S.C. 2019).

828 S.E.2d 767 (In re Hammer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In the Matter of Howard B. Hammer
784 S.E.2d 678 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2016)