in the Matter of James Arthur Cheek

Supreme Court of South Carolina

in the Matter of James Arthur Cheek

400 S.E.2d 139, 303 S.C. 280, 1991 S.C. LEXIS 19

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 21, 1991

Docket23308

StatusPublished

This text of 400 S.E.2d 139 (in the Matter of James Arthur Cheek) 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 James Arthur Cheek, 400 S.E.2d 139, 303 S.C. 280, 1991 S.C. LEXIS 19 (S.C. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an attorney disciplinary matter. The hearing panel and the Executive Committee found respondent advanced a position merely to harass or maliciously injure another and improperly disclosed the existence of a grievance complaint in violation of Rule 20 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure.¹ We concur in these findings and conclude the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand and restitution.

The findings of misconduct arose from the following matters. In October 1986, attorney Cheryl Aaron instituted a civil lawsuit on behalf of a client who alleged respondent’s client had participated in sexually assaulting her. When Aaron refused respondent’s request to dismiss his client from the action, respondent filed a third-party complaint against Aaron and her law firm for libel.² After the third-party complaint was dismissed upon motion of Aaron’s defense counsel, respondent appealed to this Court and subsequently sought to reinstate the appeal after it was dismissed as abandoned.

As a result of the third-party action and appeal, Aaron was forced to withdraw from her representation and incurred $2,022.79 in attorney’s fees. Respondent has reimbursed Aaron $1,000.00 of that amount.

In April 1987, respondent represented Robert Petty in an attempt to set aside a settlement obtained on Petty’s behalf by another Spartanburg attorney. In his motion to substitute counsel, respondent stated Petty had instituted a grievance complaint against the Spartanburg attorney. Even though re[282]*282spondent knew the grievance matter had been dismissed, he again stated in a subsequent motion and on appeal that a grievance complaint had been filed.

Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Further, respondent shall make full restitution to Cheryl Aaron in the amount of $1,022.79.

Public reprimand. .

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

Per Curiam:

This is an attorney disciplinary matter. The hearing panel and the Executive Committee found respondent advanced a position merely to harass or maliciously injure another and improperly disclosed the existence of a grievance complaint in violation of Rule 20 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure.¹ We concur in these findings and conclude the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand and restitution.

The findings of misconduct arose from the following matters. In October 1986, attorney Cheryl Aaron instituted a civil lawsuit on behalf of a client who alleged respondent’s client had participated in sexually assaulting her. When Aaron refused respondent’s request to dismiss his client from the action, respondent filed a third-party complaint against Aaron and her law firm for libel.² After the third-party complaint was dismissed upon motion of Aaron’s defense counsel, respondent appealed to this Court and subsequently sought to reinstate the appeal after it was dismissed as abandoned.

As a result of the third-party action and appeal, Aaron was forced to withdraw from her representation and incurred $2,022.79 in attorney’s fees. Respondent has reimbursed Aaron $1,000.00 of that amount.

In April 1987, respondent represented Robert Petty in an attempt to set aside a settlement obtained on Petty’s behalf by another Spartanburg attorney. In his motion to substitute counsel, respondent stated Petty had instituted a grievance complaint against the Spartanburg attorney. Even though re[282]*282spondent knew the grievance matter had been dismissed, he again stated in a subsequent motion and on appeal that a grievance complaint had been filed.

Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Further, respondent shall make full restitution to Cheryl Aaron in the amount of $1,022.79.

Public reprimand. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 S.E.2d 139, 303 S.C. 280, 1991 S.C. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-james-arthur-cheek-sc-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack