Smith, Matter of
Decision Date | 17 March 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 20386,20386 |
Citation | 268 S.C. 259,233 S.E.2d 301 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | In the Matter of Edna SMITH, Petitioner. |
Laughlin McDonald, Atlanta, Ray P. McClain, Charleston, and Melvin H. Wulf, New York City, for petitioner.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. A. Camden Lewis and Richard B. Kale, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to an order, issued under Section 34 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure, granting petitioner's request for review of a private reprimand administered by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (Board). Petitioner is a member of the Bar of this State and the private reprimand was issued upon findings that she had violated Disciplinary Rules 2-103(D)(5)(a) and (c) and 2-104(A)(5) of the Code of Professional Responsibility by soliciting a client on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The grounds urged by petitioner defensively before the Board are basically the same as she now presents to have the findings and private reprimand by the Board set aside. These are:
1. Does the record sustain the findings of the Board that petitioner violated the cited provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
2. Was petitioner's conduct protected by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and association?
3. Is Rule 4(d) of the South Carolina Supreme Court's Rule on Disciplinary Procedure void for vagueness and overbreadth?
4. Did the complaint in this case give petitioner notice of the charge as required by due process of law?
5. Does the record sustain the finding of the Board that there was no retaliatory motive on the part of the office of the Attorney General in this proceeding?
We are convinced that the record amply sustains the finding of the Board that petitioner violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and that disciplinary action was required. While we affirm the findings of the Board that petitioner was guilty of unethical conduct, we conclude that the facts and circumstances are sufficiently aggravated to justify a public, instead of a private, reprimand. Accordingly, this opinion will be published in the Reports of this Court.
This matter was first heard before a Hearing Panel which filed its report and recommendations with the Board. The following portions of the panel report, affirmed by the Board, set forth the material facts and correctly dispose of the issues presented in this appeal:
'(1) That to be entitled to injunctive relief against an action pending in a State Court the plaintiff must not only prove bad faith and harassment, which was alleged in this action, but also show that unless restrained the proceeding would cause grave and irreparable injury without providing any reasonable prospect that the State Court would respect and satisfactorily resolve the constitutional issue raised, which was not alleged or proved in the case.
'(2) That Judge Blatt's ruling in Doe v. Pierce, in regards to allowing questions as to solicitation, was solely because they might go to the issue of the appropriateness of the class action, and was in no way res judicata or acted as a collateral estoppel upon the Board or the Supreme Court of South Carolina.'
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Edna Smith Primus, Appellant
...associational freedom of nonprofit organizations, or their members, having characteristics like those of the ACLU. Pp. 438-439. 268 S.C. 259, 233 S.E.2d 301, Ray P. McClain, Charleston, S. C., for appellant. Richard B. Kale, Jr., Columbia, S. C., for appellee. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered t......
-
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association
...... Carol said she would have to discuss the matter with her parents. She did not sign the agreement, but asked appellant to have her parents come to see her. 2 Appellant also attempted to see Wanda ......
-
Teichner, In re
...wrote to her informing her of the ACLU's offer. The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a public reprimand to Primus (Matter of Smith, 268 S.C. 259, 233 S.E.2d 301), but the United States Supreme Court reversed. Although the holdings of Primus and of Ohralik each can be stated quite narrowl......
-
In re Jones
...(Tex.Civ.App. 1977) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice may consist of acts "too numerous to list"); Matter of Smith, 268 S.C. 259, 233 S.E.2d 301, 304 (1977); In re Rook, 276 Or. 695, 556 P.2d 1351, 1357 (1976); State v. Nelson, 210 Kan. 637, 640, 504 P.2d 211, 214 (1972) (ho......