In the Matter of Matthew Jeffrey Lester

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In the Matter of Matthew Jeffrey Lester

790 S.E.2d 608, 417 S.C. 426, 2016 S.C. LEXIS 253

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 24, 2016

DocketAppellate Case 2016-000535; Opinion 27661

StatusPublished

This text of 790 S.E.2d 608 (In the Matter of Matthew Jeffrey Lester) 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 Matthew Jeffrey Lester, 790 S.E.2d 608, 417 S.C. 426, 2016 S.C. LEXIS 253 (S.C. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

By order of the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina dated October 3, 2013, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in North Carolina. 1 The order was forwarded to this Court by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) on March 11, 2016. 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 ODC submitted a letter stating it has no information that would indicate imposition of identical discipline against respondent in South Carolina is not warranted. Respondent did not respond to the Clerk’s letter.

We find disbarment 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.

DISBARRED.

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

1

. The order is a Consent Order of Disbarment that states respondent resigned from the North Carolina State Bar in light of a pending investigation into misappropriation of client funds. The order further states respondent acknowledged the material facts upon which the investigation was predicated were true and that he could not successfully defend against disciplinary charges if brought. The order concluded that by misappropriating client funds, respondent violated Rule 8.4 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and the conduct constituted grounds for discipline. Finally, the order concluded respondent had engaged in professional misconduct warranting disbarment. Accordingly, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in North Carolina.

2

. This letter was mailed to the two most recent addresses respondent provided in the Attorney Information System (AIS), both in North Carolina. ODC also attempted to contact respondent using the email address he provided in AIS but received no response.

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

PER CURIAM:

By order of the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina dated October 3, 2013, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in North Carolina. 1 The order was forwarded to this Court by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) on March 11, 2016. 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 ODC submitted a letter stating it has no information that would indicate imposition of identical discipline against respondent in South Carolina is not warranted. Respondent did not respond to the Clerk’s letter.

We find disbarment 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.

DISBARRED.

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

1

. The order is a Consent Order of Disbarment that states respondent resigned from the North Carolina State Bar in light of a pending investigation into misappropriation of client funds. The order further states respondent acknowledged the material facts upon which the investigation was predicated were true and that he could not successfully defend against disciplinary charges if brought. The order concluded that by misappropriating client funds, respondent violated Rule 8.4 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and the conduct constituted grounds for discipline. Finally, the order concluded respondent had engaged in professional misconduct warranting disbarment. Accordingly, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in North Carolina.

2

. This letter was mailed to the two most recent addresses respondent provided in the Attorney Information System (AIS), both in North Carolina. ODC also attempted to contact respondent using the email address he provided in AIS but received no response.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

790 S.E.2d 608, 417 S.C. 426, 2016 S.C. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-matthew-jeffrey-lester-sc-2016.