Morgan, Matter of, 22533

Decision Date16 December 1985
Docket NumberNo. 22533,22533
Citation343 S.E.2d 29,288 S.C. 401
PartiesRe In the Matter of Julian Hampden MORGAN, Jr. . Heard
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Howard Carlisle Bean, Spartanburg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This is an attorney grievance proceeding. Respondent is charged with violations of

                three sections of the Code of [288 S.C. 402] Professional Responsibility.   The Executive Committee recommended a private reprimand
                
FACTS

In 1978, Dr. John Tate, a Spartanburg dentist, deeded his home to his four daughters, one of whom was a minor. However, he continued to occupy the home with his wife and the minor.

In 1982, Dr. Tate, in financial difficulty, employed Respondent to aid in effecting a sale of the home which was threatened with mortgage foreclosure. The three adult daughters executed powers of attorney authorizing Respondent to sell the house. Respondent was to receive 8% of the sale price as his fee.

From January through July, 1982, Respondent attempted to market the residence. During this period he dealt exclusively with Dr. Tate. They discussed needed house repairs and the status of negotiations with potential purchasers.

In August, 1982, Respondent signed a contract of sale with a Mr. and Mrs. Spaugh. The agreement was contingent upon court approval for sale of the minor's interest. Respondent was also to receive $500 from the Spaughs in this transaction, the $500 to be deducted from Respondent's 8% fee from the Tate daughters.

When Dr. Tate and his adult daughters learned of the Spaugh contract, the daughters revoked their powers of attorney as they felt the sales price was too low.

The contract provided for surrender of the home. When the Tates and minor daughter failed to vacate, Respondent, as party plaintiff, brought an eviction action in Magistrate's Court. On the same day he filed an action in Circuit Court to compel the minor to convey her one-fourth interest to the Spaughs.

Both actions were dismissed within two months.

On August 13, 1982, Respondent filed a lis pendens against the property, which he later withdrew.

In October, 1982, the daughters sold the home to a Dr. and Mrs. Bass. Sale of the minor's interest was approved by the Circuit Court.

In November, 1982, Respondent brought an action against the three adult daughters in quantum meruit for compensation for his legal services. The Circuit Court granted a demurrer. The Court of Appeals reversed. Morgan v. Tate, 85-MO-026 (filed May 30, 1985).

At a jury trial upon remand, a mistrial was declared. In a second trial, the action was dismissed. Appeal to this Court of the dismissal has been filed.

A. Violations Charged

The Executive Committee found, and we agree, that Respondent's conduct violated:

D.R. 5-104(A), which prohibits a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client if they have differing interests and if the client expects the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment in the matter for the protection of his client, unless the client has consented after full disclosure;

D.R. 5-105(B), which prohibits a lawyer from continuing multiple representations if his exercise of independent professional judgment is, or will likely be, affected adversely by his representation of another client; and

D.R. 7-101(A)(3), which prohibits a lawyer from damaging or prejudicing his client during the course of representation.

DISCUSSION

From the record it is clear that Respondent sought to represent three sets of interests: the Tates', the Spaughs' and his own. In the course of doing so, he violated the three Code sections cited. His conduct constitutes a flagrant breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent's misconduct derives in large measure from an unawareness of who his clients were. Much of his defense is premised upon a mistaken position that Dr. Tate was not his client and, indeed, was a "stranger to the transaction."

The evidence of record points clearly to an attorney-client relationship between Respondent and Dr. Tate. According to his own testimony, Respondent: was "technically" representing Dr. Tate in January, 1982; was first contacted by Dr. Tate concerning a sale of the residence; negotiated his 8% fee with Dr. Tate; discussed with Dr. Tate improvements to be made on the residence; discussed with Dr. Tate potential purchasers; talked regularly with Dr. Tate during the period the residence was on the market; recognized that Dr. Tate was conducting the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • MATTER OF BELL, 24817.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 20, 1998
    ......Morgan, 288 S.C. 401, 343 S.E.2d 29 (1986) (attorney publicly reprimanded for representing clients with conflicting interests); In re William Pyatt, 280 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT