In re Moore

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In re Moore

269 S.E.2d 771, 275 S.C. 280, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 466

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedSeptember 4, 1980

Docket21293

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 S.E.2d 771 (In re Moore) 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 Moore, 269 S.E.2d 771, 275 S.C. 280, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 466 (S.C. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam:

This is a grievance proceeding charging Fred Henderson Moore, an attorney, with professional misconduct concerning his real estate practice. The Panel concluded that the irregularities in the respondent’s title work constituted simple negligence and therefore recommended dismissal of the action. The Executive Committee found the respondent’s actions involved more than simple negligence and recommended the sanction of private reprimand.

Although we agree with the Executive Committee’s finding that more than simple negligence is involved, we disagree as to the appropriate sanction. The record before us indicates several instances of the respondent’s neglect concerning real estate title work for his clients. Such disregard constitutes neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of DR 6-101 (A) (3), and warrants imposition of a public censure.

Attorney Fred Henderson Moore stands publicly reprimanded by this Court in accordance with § 7A(3) of the Supreme Court rules on Disciplinary Procedure.

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

Per Curiam:

This is a grievance proceeding charging Fred Henderson Moore, an attorney, with professional misconduct concerning his real estate practice. The Panel concluded that the irregularities in the respondent’s title work constituted simple negligence and therefore recommended dismissal of the action. The Executive Committee found the respondent’s actions involved more than simple negligence and recommended the sanction of private reprimand.

Although we agree with the Executive Committee’s finding that more than simple negligence is involved, we disagree as to the appropriate sanction. The record before us indicates several instances of the respondent’s neglect concerning real estate title work for his clients. Such disregard constitutes neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of DR 6-101 (A) (3), and warrants imposition of a public censure.

Attorney Fred Henderson Moore stands publicly reprimanded by this Court in accordance with § 7A(3) of the Supreme Court rules on Disciplinary Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.E.2d 771, 275 S.C. 280, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-moore-sc-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack