In re Howe

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In re Howe

394 S.E.2d 325, 302 S.C. 156, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 149

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 23, 1990

Docket23245

StatusPublished

This text of 394 S.E.2d 325 (In re Howe) 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 Howe, 394 S.E.2d 325, 302 S.C. 156, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 149 (S.C. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this attorney grievance matter, respondent has tendered a conditional admission and consents to a public reprimand. We accept the conditional admission and publicly reprimand respondent.

The United States District Court, Charleston, South Carolina, seized property belonging to respondent’s clients. Respondent states that he disregarded the seizure order and attempted to recover money from the clients’ property.

Respondent admits that his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and that it reflected adversely on his competence and fitness to practice law in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Supreme Court Rule 32, DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6). He further admits that his conduct tended to bring the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Section 5D of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure.

We agree that respondent’s actions violated the Code and the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure. We publicly reprimand him for his conduct in this matter.

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

Per Curiam:

In this attorney grievance matter, respondent has tendered a conditional admission and consents to a public reprimand. We accept the conditional admission and publicly reprimand respondent.

The United States District Court, Charleston, South Carolina, seized property belonging to respondent’s clients. Respondent states that he disregarded the seizure order and attempted to recover money from the clients’ property.

Respondent admits that his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and that it reflected adversely on his competence and fitness to practice law in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Supreme Court Rule 32, DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6). He further admits that his conduct tended to bring the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Section 5D of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure.

We agree that respondent’s actions violated the Code and the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure. We publicly reprimand him for his conduct in this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 S.E.2d 325, 302 S.C. 156, 1990 S.C. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-howe-sc-1990.