January 17, 2012
Habitual Recalcitrance Draws Suspension
An attorney has been suspended for nine months by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
The attorney was the subject of 23 complaints and had prior discipline:
We concur in the Panel's findings that Respondent's prior disciplinary history and pattern of misconduct are aggravating factors. Further, we are troubled by Respondent's habitual recalcitrance to respond to inquiries by ODC. We also consider Respondent's testimony in mitigation, although we do not believe the mitigation justifies a three-month suspension. We view the mitigation testimony alongside Respondent's persistent pattern of failures to communicate adequately with his clients, to exercise appropriate diligence in pursuing their objectives, to timely refund unearned fees, and to cooperate with ODC.
Accordingly, in light of the multitude of complaints (twenty-three) involving repeated violations of the same rules, we find a nine-month definite suspension is an appropriate sanction for Respondent's misconduct.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Habitual Recalcitrance Draws Suspension: