In re Powell

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In re Powell

478 S.E.2d 685, 325 S.C. 21, 1996 S.C. LEXIS 209

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 2, 1996

DocketNo. 24539

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 478 S.E.2d 685 (In re Powell) 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 Powell, 478 S.E.2d 685, 325 S.C. 21, 1996 S.C. LEXIS 209 (S.C. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this attorney grievance proceeding, respondent admits that he has committed ethical violations and consents to a public reprimand. We accept respondent’s admission and publicly reprimand him.

The ethical violations committed by respondent arose out of his representation of two clients in the purchase of a lot and mobile home. Although the closing took place on or about May 13, 1993, respondent admits that he did not file the clients’ application for a certificate of title to the mobile home until on or about January 17, 1995. He further admits that, without authorization, he signed the clients’ names on the application form and notarized the same.

Respondent has violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct contained in Rule 407, SCACR, by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing these clients. Additionally, by illegally forging and notarizing the signature of his clients, respondent has also violated Rule 8.4(b) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct contained in Rule 407, SCACR, by engaging in conduct which reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer and by engaging in conduct which involves fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. See S.C.Code Ann. § 26-1-95 (1991) (false certification by notary).

Under the circumstances of this case, we have decided to accept respondent’s conditional admission for a public reprimand. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for his conduct in this matter.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this attorney grievance proceeding, respondent admits that he has committed ethical violations and consents to a public reprimand. We accept respondent’s admission and publicly reprimand him.

The ethical violations committed by respondent arose out of his representation of two clients in the purchase of a lot and mobile home. Although the closing took place on or about May 13, 1993, respondent admits that he did not file the clients’ application for a certificate of title to the mobile home until on or about January 17, 1995. He further admits that, without authorization, he signed the clients’ names on the application form and notarized the same.

Respondent has violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct contained in Rule 407, SCACR, by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing these clients. Additionally, by illegally forging and notarizing the signature of his clients, respondent has also violated Rule 8.4(b) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct contained in Rule 407, SCACR, by engaging in conduct which reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer and by engaging in conduct which involves fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. See S.C.Code Ann. § 26-1-95 (1991) (false certification by notary).

Under the circumstances of this case, we have decided to accept respondent’s conditional admission for a public reprimand. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for his conduct in this matter.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 S.E.2d 685, 325 S.C. 21, 1996 S.C. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-powell-sc-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack