In the Matter of Belser

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In the Matter of Belser

287 S.E.2d 139, 277 S.C. 250, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 244

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 4, 1982

Docket21615

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 S.E.2d 139 (In the Matter of Belser) 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 the Matter of Belser, 287 S.E.2d 139, 277 S.C. 250, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 244 (S.C. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam:

This disciplinary action charges Joseph Henry Belser, Jr., an attorney, with professional misconduct in the handling of legal matters entrusted him. The panel report and executive committee recommended the complaint be dismissed with a letter of caution. We disagree with the findings by the panel and executive committee and with the sanction recommended.

This grievance arose during a foreclosure action where Belser represented one of the defendants. Belser agreed to a continuance of the proceedings based on his asserted belief that he had to appear before the Supreme Court on the original date set for the foreclosure hearing. In fact, Belser had no appearance before the Supreme Court on that day. Respondent further failed to appear at the subsequent hearing, and then filed exceptions to that hearing containing incorrect allegations, and further failed to serve the exceptions on opposing counsel.

[251]*251When these exceptions were argued before the circuit judge, opposing counsel informed respondent his exceptions were improper. Respondent then abandoned the exceptions during the hearing before the circuit court.

Respondent testified he failed to serve the exceptions on opposing counsel as required due to the fact that he was not aware of the rule of practice requiring service.

We find no authority for the sanction referred to by the panel as a “letter of caution.” Recently we noted four permissible sanctions: disbarment; indefinite suspension; public reprimand; and private reprimand. In the Matter of Pride, Smith’s, 278 S. E. (2d) 774 (S. C. 1981).

We hold that the respondent has violated DR6 — 101(A) (2) and (3) by handling a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances and by neglecting to inquire concerning a legal matter entrusted to him. We also take a dim view of the respondent’s lack of knowledge and familiarity with basic rules of practice in the South Carolina Courts. Under these circumstances a public censure is waranted. In the Matter of Kitts, Smith’s, 277 S. E. (2d) 602 (S. C. 1981).

Attorney Joseph Henry Belser, Jr. stands publicly reprimanded by this Court in accordance with Rule 7A(3) of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur and dissent.

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

Per Curiam:

This disciplinary action charges Joseph Henry Belser, Jr., an attorney, with professional misconduct in the handling of legal matters entrusted him. The panel report and executive committee recommended the complaint be dismissed with a letter of caution. We disagree with the findings by the panel and executive committee and with the sanction recommended.

This grievance arose during a foreclosure action where Belser represented one of the defendants. Belser agreed to a continuance of the proceedings based on his asserted belief that he had to appear before the Supreme Court on the original date set for the foreclosure hearing. In fact, Belser had no appearance before the Supreme Court on that day. Respondent further failed to appear at the subsequent hearing, and then filed exceptions to that hearing containing incorrect allegations, and further failed to serve the exceptions on opposing counsel.

[251]*251When these exceptions were argued before the circuit judge, opposing counsel informed respondent his exceptions were improper. Respondent then abandoned the exceptions during the hearing before the circuit court.

Respondent testified he failed to serve the exceptions on opposing counsel as required due to the fact that he was not aware of the rule of practice requiring service.

We find no authority for the sanction referred to by the panel as a “letter of caution.” Recently we noted four permissible sanctions: disbarment; indefinite suspension; public reprimand; and private reprimand. In the Matter of Pride, Smith’s, 278 S. E. (2d) 774 (S. C. 1981).

We hold that the respondent has violated DR6 — 101(A) (2) and (3) by handling a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances and by neglecting to inquire concerning a legal matter entrusted to him. We also take a dim view of the respondent’s lack of knowledge and familiarity with basic rules of practice in the South Carolina Courts. Under these circumstances a public censure is waranted. In the Matter of Kitts, Smith’s, 277 S. E. (2d) 602 (S. C. 1981).

Attorney Joseph Henry Belser, Jr. stands publicly reprimanded by this Court in accordance with Rule 7A(3) of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur and dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 S.E.2d 139, 277 S.C. 250, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-belser-sc-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack