In the Matter of Joel Thomas Broome

768 S.E.2d 662, 411 S.C. 413, 2015 S.C. LEXIS 62
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 11, 2015
DocketAppellate Case 2014-002480; 27492
StatusPublished

This text of 768 S.E.2d 662 (In the Matter of Joel Thomas Broome) 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 Joel Thomas Broome, 768 S.E.2d 662, 411 S.C. 413, 2015 S.C. LEXIS 62 (S.C. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court *414 Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of a public reprimand or definite suspension up to one (1) year. Respondent requests that any suspension be imposed retroactively to October 9, 2013, the date of his interim suspension. In the Matter of Broome, 405 S.C. 621, 749 S.E.2d 114 (2013). We accept the Agreement and suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state for six (6) months, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

Facts

On September 27, 2013, respondent was arrested and charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct-Third Degree. On October 9, 2013, the Court placed respondent on interim suspension. Id.

On March 17, 2014, respondent pled guilty to Assault and Battery-Third Degree. He was sentenced to thirty (30) days in jail, suspended upon service of six months of probation. 1 As part of his probation, an evaluation for substance abuse, anger, and sexual deviance was performed. After testing, the evaluator did not classify respondent with a substance abuse diagnosis and determined respondent did not need to participate in a substance abuse class or alcohol counseling. Regarding respondent’s risk for sexual offense, the evaluator determined respondent has low risk indicators, suggesting respondent would not knowingly violate his own or another person’s boundaries.

Law

Respondent admits that by his conduct he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 8.4(a) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct) and Rule 8.4(c) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to commit criminal act involving moral turpitude).

Respondent also admits he has violated the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: *415 Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to violate Rules for Professional Conduct).

Conclusion

We accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and impose a six (6) month suspension, retroactive to the date of respondent’s interim suspension. Id. Within fifteen (15) 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 of Rule 413, SCACR.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
1

. Respondent has completed probation.

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

Related

In re Broome
749 S.E.2d 114 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
768 S.E.2d 662, 411 S.C. 413, 2015 S.C. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-joel-thomas-broome-sc-2015.