In the Matter of Francis Deslauriers

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In the Matter of Francis Deslauriers

812 S.E.2d 737, 422 S.C. 428

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 4, 2018

DocketAppellate Case 2017-002562; Opinion 27788

StatusPublished

This text of 812 S.E.2d 737 (In the Matter of Francis Deslauriers) 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 Francis Deslauriers, 812 S.E.2d 737, 422 S.C. 428 (S.C. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

**428 By order of the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee *738 dated April 20, 2017, respondent was censured for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. 1 The order was forwarded to this Court by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) on December 19, 2017. Thereafter, pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR, ODC and respondent were notified by letter of the Clerk of this Court that they had thirty days to inform the Court of any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in South Carolina is not warranted and the reasons for any such claim. 2 Respondent did not respond to the Clerk's letter. **429 We find a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction to impose as reciprocal discipline, as none of the reasons set forth in Rule 29(d) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement for the imposition of different discipline exists in this matter.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

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

1

The order states that in August 2012, respondent was retained to represent a client in a lawsuit against an insurance company for a property damage claim, but filed nothing in the case and did not communicate with his client despite the client's numerous requests for updates. Eventually, respondent filed a complaint in January 2015; however, in March 2016, after another year of taking no action and failing to communicate with his client, respondent informed his client that he had failed to serve the defendants or take their depositions, resulting in his client's case being dismissed. The order concluded respondent violated Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was publicly censured for the violations.

2

This letter was mailed to the most recent address respondent provided in the Attorney Information System (AIS).

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

PER CURIAM:

**428 By order of the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee *738 dated April 20, 2017, respondent was censured for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. 1 The order was forwarded to this Court by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) on December 19, 2017. Thereafter, pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR, ODC and respondent were notified by letter of the Clerk of this Court that they had thirty days to inform the Court of any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in South Carolina is not warranted and the reasons for any such claim. 2 Respondent did not respond to the Clerk's letter. **429 We find a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction to impose as reciprocal discipline, as none of the reasons set forth in Rule 29(d) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement for the imposition of different discipline exists in this matter.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

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

1

The order states that in August 2012, respondent was retained to represent a client in a lawsuit against an insurance company for a property damage claim, but filed nothing in the case and did not communicate with his client despite the client's numerous requests for updates. Eventually, respondent filed a complaint in January 2015; however, in March 2016, after another year of taking no action and failing to communicate with his client, respondent informed his client that he had failed to serve the defendants or take their depositions, resulting in his client's case being dismissed. The order concluded respondent violated Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was publicly censured for the violations.

2

This letter was mailed to the most recent address respondent provided in the Attorney Information System (AIS).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 S.E.2d 737, 422 S.C. 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-francis-deslauriers-sc-2018.