In re Morris

535 S.E.2d 430, 341 S.C. 405, 2000 S.C. LEXIS 169
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 3, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 535 S.E.2d 430 (In re Morris) 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 Morris, 535 S.E.2d 430, 341 S.C. 405, 2000 S.C. LEXIS 169 (S.C. 2000).

Opinion

ORDER

The Office of the Disciplinary Counsel petitions this Court for an order transferring respondent to incapacity inactive status pursuant to Rule 17(b), Rule 413, Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent is transferred to incapacity inactive status until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John Robert Devlin, Jr., Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent’s client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating aecount(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain. Mr. Devlin shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent’s clients. Mr. Devlin may make disbursements from respondent’s trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating 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 John Robert Devlin, Jr., 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 John Robert Devlin, Jr., 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. Devlin’s office.

[406]*406/s/ Jean H. Toal, C.J.

FOR THE COURT

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

Related

In Re Morris
541 S.E.2d 844 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
535 S.E.2d 430, 341 S.C. 405, 2000 S.C. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-morris-sc-2000.