Altman, Matter of, 22431
| Decision Date | 19 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22431,22431 |
| Citation | 338 S.E.2d 334,287 S.C. 321 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of John Graham ALTMAN, III, Respondent. . Heard |
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard B. Kale, Jr., and Asst. Atty. Gen. Ruby B. McClain, Columbia, for complainant.
Robert W. Wallace, of Wallace & Tinkler, Charleston, for respondent.
This grievance proceeding charges John Graham Altman with 1) practicing law while under suspension in violation of DR 3-101(B); 2) being held in contempt of the Supreme Court; 3) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4); and 4) engaging in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, or conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) & (6) and Rule on Disciplinary Procedure § 5(D). The proceeding arose from respondent's failure to comply with the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements in violation of Supreme Court Rule 53 and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, and his subsequent dealings with this Court. We agree with the Executive Committee that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction.
The factual findings of the Panel, which were unanimously adopted by the Executive Committee, reveal that the respondent failed to satisfy the CLE requirements for the 1983 calendar year. On April 16, 1984, Harris Hollis, the administrative director for the Commission on Continuing Lawyer Competence, sent respondent a certified letter notifying him that he had sixty days in which to comply or face automatic suspension. The letter was returned undelivered. On May 8, 1984, an identical certified letter was sent to respondent at another address. This letter was also returned undelivered.
On September 17, 1984, this Court ordered respondent to appear on October 29, 1984, to show cause why he should not have to deliver his bar certificate. The order was received by respondent through registered mail on September 20, 1984. In response to the order, respondent sent a compliance form to the Commission on Continuing Lawyer Competence. On October 22, 1984, he filed a return to this Court's order to show cause, asserting that he had satisfied the 1983 CLE requirements.
One of the entries on respondent's compliance report was a video seminar at Trident Technical College on June 22, 1984. The Commission had no record of respondent's attendance at this seminar. Respondent wrote to Harris Hollis explaining the circumstances surrounding his attendance at the remote video site. As a result of subsequent conversations between respondent and Mr. Hollis, respondent was under the erroneous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards, Matter of
...But see In re Pridgen, 288 S.C. 96, 341 S.E.2d 376 (1986)(imposing public reprimand for submitting false CLE report); In re Altman, 287 S.C. 321, 338 S.E.2d 334 (1985)(imposing public reprimand on lawyer who misrepresented facts concerning registration for CLE Edwards' dishonesty was less s......
-
Rowland, Matter of, 22743
...Court Rules. This Court regards an attorney's obligation to obtain continuing legal education credits very seriously. Matter of Altman, 287 S.C. 321, 338 S.E.2d 334 (1985). See also, Matter of Iseman, 290 S.C. 391, 350 S.E.2d 922 (1986). Respondent's disregard of this requirement may, in it......