In the Matter of Meehan

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In the Matter of Meehan

722 S.E.2d 525, 396 S.C. 512, 2012 S.C. LEXIS 10

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 1, 2012

Docket27089

StatusPublished

This text of 722 S.E.2d 525 (In the Matter of Meehan) 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 Meehan, 722 S.E.2d 525, 396 S.C. 512, 2012 S.C. LEXIS 10 (S.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

*513 PER CURIAM.

This attorney disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the reciprocal disciplinary provisions of Rule 29, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. The facts are set forth below.

Respondent is licensed to practice law in Tennessee and South Carolina. On September 23, 2011, the Supreme Court of Tennessee publicly censured respondent. The Board of Professional Responsibility (the Board) of the Supreme Court of Tennessee specified respondent submitted a false resumé to a potential employer and made false statements to disciplinary counsel for the Board.

Respondent reported the public censure to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) as required by Rule 29(a), RLDE. ODC submitted a certified copy of the Supreme Court of Tennessee’s public censure to the Clerk. In accordance with Rule 29(b), RLDE, the Clerk provided ODC and respondent with thirty (30) days in which to inform the Court of any reason why the imposition of identical discipline in this state was not warranted. ODC filed a response stating it knew of no reason why identical discipline was unwarranted. Respondent did not respond.

After thorough review of the record, we hereby publicly reprimand respondent for her misconduct. See Rule 29(d), RLDE.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

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

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

*513 PER CURIAM.

This attorney disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the reciprocal disciplinary provisions of Rule 29, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. The facts are set forth below.

Respondent is licensed to practice law in Tennessee and South Carolina. On September 23, 2011, the Supreme Court of Tennessee publicly censured respondent. The Board of Professional Responsibility (the Board) of the Supreme Court of Tennessee specified respondent submitted a false resumé to a potential employer and made false statements to disciplinary counsel for the Board.

Respondent reported the public censure to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) as required by Rule 29(a), RLDE. ODC submitted a certified copy of the Supreme Court of Tennessee’s public censure to the Clerk. In accordance with Rule 29(b), RLDE, the Clerk provided ODC and respondent with thirty (30) days in which to inform the Court of any reason why the imposition of identical discipline in this state was not warranted. ODC filed a response stating it knew of no reason why identical discipline was unwarranted. Respondent did not respond.

After thorough review of the record, we hereby publicly reprimand respondent for her misconduct. See Rule 29(d), RLDE.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

722 S.E.2d 525, 396 S.C. 512, 2012 S.C. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-meehan-sc-2012.