In re Toney

742 S.E.2d 867, 403 S.C. 135, 2013 WL 2719779, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 141
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMay 8, 2013
DocketAppellate Case No. 2012-212055; No. 2012-212055
StatusPublished

This text of 742 S.E.2d 867 (In re Toney) 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 Toney, 742 S.E.2d 867, 403 S.C. 135, 2013 WL 2719779, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 141 (S.C. 2013).

Opinion

ORDER

On January 17, 2012, the Court suspended petitioner from the practice of law for nine (9) months and ordered he pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings within sixty (60) days. In the Matter of Toney, 396 S.C. 303, 721 S.E.2d 437 (2012). In addition to other requirements, the Court ordered petitioner to complete twelve (12) months of mentoring “in accordance with the Panel’s” after reinstatement.1

Pursuant to Rule 33, RLDE, of Rule 413, SCACR, petitioner filed a Petition for Reinstatement seeking reinstatement to the practice of law. The matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness (the Committee). After a hearing, the Committee issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the Court deny the Petition for Reinstatement. Petitioner filed exceptions to the recommendation.

After consideration of the entire record, including petitioner’s testimony during oral argument before the Court, the Court grants the Petition for Reinstatement on the following conditions:

1. for the next twelve (12) months, petitioner shall be mentored by a member of the South Carolina Bar who has been approved by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel;

[136]*1362. the mentor and petitioner shall, at minimum, address the issues recommended by the Hearing Panel; and

3. the mentor shall file quarterly reports with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) addressing petitioner’s compliance and progress with the mentoring requirement.

/s/Jean H. Toal, C.J. /s/Costa M. Pleicones, J. /s/Donald W. Beatty, J. /s/John W. Kittredge, J. /s/Kaye G. Hearn, J.

/s/FOR THE COURT

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

Related

In Re Toney
721 S.E.2d 437 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
742 S.E.2d 867, 403 S.C. 135, 2013 WL 2719779, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-toney-sc-2013.