In the Matter of Holman

286 S.E.2d 148, 277 S.C. 293, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 256
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJanuary 12, 1982
Docket21627
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 286 S.E.2d 148 (In the Matter of Holman) 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 Holman, 286 S.E.2d 148, 277 S.C. 293, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 256 (S.C. 1982).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The respondent Holman is a duly licensed attorney in the State of South Carolina, previously practicing law in Cherokee County. On February 16,1981, he was convicted in the general sessions court of Cherokee for contempt of court. No appeal was taken from this conviction. On March 12, 1981, this Court temporarily suspended respondent’s license to practice law pursuant to § 6C of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure.

This grievance action charges Holman with misconduct under § 15B, 15C and 16 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure. The Panel Hearing and the Executive Committee determined Holman to be guilty of the alleged misconduct and recommended an indefinite suspension be imposed. No exceptions have been taken from the Panel or Executive Committee report.

Respondent has admitted he was convicted of contempt of court based on an alleged communication with a member of a jury selected for a trial where respondent represented the defendant. These facts place the misconduct within the definition of a “serious crime” contained in § 2N of the Rules on Disciplinary Procedure.

The authority to discipline attorneys and the manner by which the discipline is given rests entirely with this Court. Burns v. Clayton, 237 S. C. 316, 117 S. E. (2d) 300 (1960). We disagree with the recommendations of the Panel and Executive Committee.

The vast majority of cases involving misconduct which constitutes a “serious crime” under the Rules impose disbarment as the appropriate sanction. We see no reason to hold otherwise here. In Re Caskey, 279 S. E. (2d) 129 (1981); In Re Risk, 273 S. C. 365, 256 S. E. (2d) 540 (1979); In Re Winter, 273 S. C. 156, 255 S. E. (2d) 347 (1979).

Accordingly, respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in this State and shall, within five (5) day from the service of this opinion, deliver his certificate of admission to practice to the Clerk of this Court for cancellation.

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

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Breiner
969 P.2d 1285 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)
In the Matter of Tedder
374 S.E.2d 294 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1988)
In re James
344 S.E.2d 378 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)
In the Matter of Jenrette
342 S.E.2d 596 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)
In the Matter of Warlick
339 S.E.2d 110 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
286 S.E.2d 148, 277 S.C. 293, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-holman-sc-1982.