Tuesday, March 8, 2011

The Pagans Of Atlantic Beach

The South Carolina Supreme Court has imposed a 90 day definite suspension for ethics violations predicated on the following facts:

In 2004, Respondent represented the Atlantic Beach Christian Methodist Episcopal Church("Church") in a legal action it filed against the Town regarding a zoning dispute.  The Town Attorney was Charles Boykin.  The parties settled the action in 2007.  As part of the settlement, the Church's action was dismissed, the Town paid damages to the Church, and the Church promised future compliance with all of the Town's building, permitting, and zoning requirements. 

On April 30, 2009, Kenneth McIver, the new Town Manager, sent a notice about the need for zoning compliance to the owners of the Church property, Vonetta M. Nimocks and Eboni A. McClary ("Church's Landlords").  In his notice, McIver stated that as part of the prior settlement, "the judge ordered that the Church must comply with the Town's Zoning Ordinances and that a request for compliance must come from you, the owner[s]."  McIver copied the notice to the Church's pastor, who gave it to Respondent.    

On May 6, 2009, Respondent sent a letter about McIver's notice to the Church's Landlords.  Respondent sent copies of his letter to McIver and Boykin.  The remarks made by Respondent in his May 6th letter are the subject of this disciplinary proceeding.  The letter reads in full as follows:

You have been sent a letter by purported Town Manager Kenneth McIver.  The letter is false.  You notice McIver has no Order.  He also has no brains and it is questionable if he has a soul.  Christ was crucified some 2000 years ago.  The church is His body on earth.  The pagans at Atlantic Beach want to crucify His body here on earth yet again.

We will continue to defend you against the Town's insane [sic].  As they continue to have to pay for damages they pigheadedly cause the church.  You will also be entitled to damages if you want to pursue them.

First graders know about freedom of religion.  The pagans of Atlantic Beach think they are above God and the Federal law.  They do not seem to be able to learn.  People like them in S.C. tried to defy Federal law before with similar lack of success.

McIver delivered the letter to the Town Council, and three council members thereafter filed a disciplinary complaint against Respondent.  ODC instituted formal charges against Respondent as a result of his conduct.

At the hearing on June 8, 2010, counsel for ODC stated:  "ODC alleges that [Respondent's] statements questioning whether Mr. McIver has a soul, saying that he has no brain, calling the leadership of the Town pagans and insane and pigheaded violates his professional obligations, which include his obligation to provide competent representation to his clients; his obligation under Rule 4.4 to treat third parties in a way that doesn't embarrass them; Rule 8.4 to behave in a way that doesn't prejudice the administration of justice; and also [] the letter was not in conformity with his obligations under his oath of office, Rule 402(k)." Counsel for ODC further alleged that Respondent had failed to cooperate with disciplinary authority by refusing to answer the allegations against him, threatening to sue the complainants for filing the grievance, and questioning ODC's authority. 

 The court on sanction:

Based on Respondent's blatant incivility and lack of decorum in this instance and the aggravating factors found by the Hearing Panel, including his disciplinary history, we impose a definite suspension of ninety days.  We further order Respondent to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program administered by the South Carolina Bar within six months of reinstatement.  Respondent's conduct in this matter reflects poorly on himself as a member of the legal profession and reflects negatively upon the profession as a whole.  He represented to this Court at oral argument that in the future he will conduct himself in accordance with the RPC and treat all persons in a civil, dignified, and professional manner as is expected of all members of the South Carolina Bar.  We expect nothing less.

(Mike Frisch)


Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Pagans Of Atlantic Beach:


How is this anything other than a case of “I know rudeness when I see it and that was rude”? That is my reaction, also. One cannot help but to react that way. But is it right to discipline based upon such a subjective analysis?

What’s more, the lawyer makes a pretty good argument that his words were intended to achieve a legitimate purpose. The Court seems to misunderstand this argument. They point to “In re Norfleet, 358 S.C. 39, 595 S.E.2d 243 (2004) (finding an attorney who became angry and spoke in a threatening manner to a school principal who refused to turn over a student's file had violated Rule 4.4; the attorney was attempting to obtain the file for the otherwise legitimate purpose of using it in litigation).” But in Norfleet, the attorney grew angry because the file was not turned over to him. There was no ligitimate purpose in his growing angry. Here, the lawyer’s words were intended to achieve a purpose (to let the town know that the church was growing tired of this and would definitely sue them for a forth time, if necessary). There is nothing inherently wrong in conveying anger. What seems to be the real issue here is the vitriol that the lawyer used to convey that anger. And that takes us right back to the first point of there being no objective standard by which to judge this lawyer’s actions.


Posted by: FixedWing | Mar 8, 2011 11:01:28 AM

Post a comment