Home/Supreme Court of South Carolina/Matter of Kirven

Matter of Kirven

230 S.E.2d 899, 267 S.C. 669, 1976 S.C. LEXIS 298
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedDecember 10, 1976
Docket20327
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 230 S.E.2d 899 (Matter of Kirven) 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
Matter of Kirven, 230 S.E.2d 899, 267 S.C. 669, 1976 S.C. LEXIS 298 (S.C. 1976).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Respondent was charged with professional misconduct in his relationship with several clients. After dismissing some of the charges, the Panel and Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended the imposition of a public reprimand.

Respondent represented a client in a Workmen’s Compensation claim and procured a settlement of $14,500.00. Prior to final distribution of the proceeds, respondent commingled his client’s funds with his own personal assets. Shortly, thereafter respondent induced his client to make him an unsecured loan of $7,000.00. The attendant promissory note was placed in respondent’s personal file and the client was given no evidence of the debt.

With respect to another client, respondent while within the attorney-client relationship loaned his client money and cosigned promissory notes for her. Most of these transactions were in cash and undocumented.

In each case, the clients with whom the respondent was bargaining were unable to intelligently negotiate their own financial affairs. Both clients were relatively uneducated, one being unable to read or write. It is blatantly apparent that in this manipulated posture, the clients were susceptible to gross overreaching.

This Court is not bound by the Board’s recommendation. Burns v. Clayton, 237 S. C. 316, 117 S. E. (2d) 300 (1960). We are required after thorough review of the record to administer the sanction we deem appropriate.

*671 We have hereof ore emphasized that commingling of trust funds is in itself a serious offense. In re Benjamin Mixson, 258 S. C. 408, 189 S. E. (2d) 12 (1972). Here, the respondent has not only breached his fiduciary duty by improper financial dealing with his naive clients, but has also concocted highly suspect transactions within the attorney-client relationship for personal profit. Such misconduct warrants an -imposition of indefinite suspension.

Accordingly, we order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in this State and that he within five (5) dajrs surrender his certificate of admission to pratcice to the Clerk of this Court.

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

Related

In re Broome
589 S.E.2d 188 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2003)
In Re Thompson
539 S.E.2d 396 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
In re Moore
536 S.E.2d 367 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
In re Gregory
532 S.E.2d 605 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
In Re Chastain
532 S.E.2d 264 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
In re Smith
524 S.E.2d 616 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1999)
In Re Rast
524 S.E.2d 619 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1999)
In Re Larkin
520 S.E.2d 804 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1999)
In Re Miles
516 S.E.2d 661 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1999)
In re Rice
514 S.E.2d 575 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1999)
Matter of Celsor
499 S.E.2d 809 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1998)
Kirven v. Secretary of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline
246 S.E.2d 857 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1978)
Kirven v. SEC. OF BD. OF COMM.
246 S.E.2d 857 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1978)
In re Craig
235 S.E.2d 811 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 S.E.2d 899, 267 S.C. 669, 1976 S.C. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kirven-sc-1976.