In the Matter of David R. DuBose

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In the Matter of David R. DuBose

815 S.E.2d 759

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 13, 2018

DocketAppellate Case 2018-000013; Opinion 27812

StatusPublished

This text of 815 S.E.2d 759 (In the Matter of David R. DuBose) 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 David R. DuBose, 815 S.E.2d 759 (S.C. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This attorney disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the reciprocal disciplinary provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.

Respondent was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia in June 2002 and in South Carolina in November 2007. On June 9, 2015, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board for fifteen (15) days with certain terms imposed on his suspension. Respondent was discipline because of misconduct involving several instances of failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients, failing to keep clients reasonably informed, and withdrawing from the representation of a client without informing the client. In re DuBose , VSB Docket No. 15-032-101878, 2015 WL 3945399 (Va.St.Disp. June 9, 2015). Respondent complied with the terms of his suspension, and the matter was concluded.

Respondent did not notify the Commission on Lawyer Conduct within fifteen (15) days of his suspension as required by Rule 29(a), RLDE. Respondent notified the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) of his suspension on December 15, 2017, and ODC notified the Court of Respondent's suspension on January 4, 2018.

As required by the provisions of Rule 29(b), the Clerk of Court provided Respondent thirty (30) days in which to assert a reason that identical discipline should not be imposed in this state. Respondent filed a return stating he would not claim that identical discipline was unwarranted.

The Court finds that reciprocal discipline is appropriate and hereby suspends Respondent from the practice of law in South Carolina for fifteen (15) days from the date of this opinion.

Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, Respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that he has complied with Rule 30, RLDE.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM:

This attorney disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the reciprocal disciplinary provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.

Respondent was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia in June 2002 and in South Carolina in November 2007. On June 9, 2015, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board for fifteen (15) days with certain terms imposed on his suspension. Respondent was discipline because of misconduct involving several instances of failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients, failing to keep clients reasonably informed, and withdrawing from the representation of a client without informing the client. In re DuBose , VSB Docket No. 15-032-101878, 2015 WL 3945399 (Va.St.Disp. June 9, 2015). Respondent complied with the terms of his suspension, and the matter was concluded.

Respondent did not notify the Commission on Lawyer Conduct within fifteen (15) days of his suspension as required by Rule 29(a), RLDE. Respondent notified the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) of his suspension on December 15, 2017, and ODC notified the Court of Respondent's suspension on January 4, 2018.

As required by the provisions of Rule 29(b), the Clerk of Court provided Respondent thirty (30) days in which to assert a reason that identical discipline should not be imposed in this state. Respondent filed a return stating he would not claim that identical discipline was unwarranted.

The Court finds that reciprocal discipline is appropriate and hereby suspends Respondent from the practice of law in South Carolina for fifteen (15) days from the date of this opinion.

Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, Respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that he has complied with Rule 30, RLDE.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

815 S.E.2d 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-david-r-dubose-sc-2018.