Home/Supreme Court of South Carolina/In re Hammer

In re Hammer

828 S.E.2d 767, 427 S.C. 14
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJune 3, 2019
DocketAppellate Case No. 2017-001062
StatusPublished

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
828 S.E.2d 767, 427 S.C. 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hammer-sc-2019.