Bishop, Matter of, 20862
| Decision Date | 25 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 20862,20862 |
| Citation | 272 S.C. 306,251 S.E.2d 748 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of John E. BISHOP, Respondent. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Richard B. Kale, Jr. and Keith M. Babcock, Columbia, for complainant.
Respondent not represented by counsel.
This matter is before the court on recommendation of The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that respondent, John E. Bishop, an attorney, be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in this State because of serious and flagrant professional misconduct which tended to pollute the administration of justice and to bring the legal profession into disrepute. Respondent was found guilty of advancing money to clients in violation of Disciplinary Rule 2-103(B); and guilty of the violation of DR1-102(A)(3) and (4), DR9-102(A)(2) and (B)(3), and DR6-101(A)(3) by his continual personal and business use of client and other trust funds, his neglect of legal matters, and his failure to maintain an account for clients' funds.
We shall not attempt a detailed review of the facts. It is sufficient to point out that they reveal a complete disregard of the professional responsibilities imposed upon lawyers and we agree with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that respondent should be permanently disbarred because of his violation of the foregoing Disciplinary Rules.
At the hearing of this matter, members of the court raised the question of whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed for respondent, since he did not appear and was serving a five (5) year prison sentence. Subsequent investigation, however, develops facts which clearly show a waiver by respondent of any right to be represented by a guardian ad litem.
This proceeding was instituted by the service of a complaint on or about July 21, 1977, to which respondent, acting as his own attorney, filed an answer, dated August 3, 1977. An amended complaint was subsequently served on the respondent and he filed an answer thereto on or about September 19, 1977. Under date of September 16, 1977, an order was issued by this court temporarily suspending respondent from the practice of law until the conclusion of the pending grievance proceeding.
The Hearing Panel, assigned to hear the charges against respondent, met in Columbia, South Carolina, on October 25, 1977, to consider this matter. Respondent was given notice of this hearing and a request was received from him by letter on October 12, 1977 requesting a continuance. A letter to respondent denying this requested continuance was accepted on October 14, 1977. The record indicates information that respondent had left and gone to San Francisco, California.
Respondent was arrested in San Francisco on December 30, 1977 and has been confined in prison since that time. In other words, respondent was not confined at the time of the Panel Hearing on October 25, 1977, and was duly notified of that hearing as shown by his request for continuance.
Since the Panel Hearing, respondent has twice attempted to end the disciplinary proceeding by voluntarily ending his membership in the South Carolina Bar. He first tendered his resignation from the Bar by letter dated January 31, 1978. This was denied and respondent then submitted a letter on July 25, 1978 tendering a request to be permitted to consent to disbarment. This request was also refused.
This matter was brought before the court by a Rule to Show Cause which was served on respondent by depositing a copy of the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craigo v. Marshall
...Bilello v. A.J. Eckert Co., 42 A.D.2d 243, 346 N.Y.S.2d 2 (1973); Whisnant v. Byrd, 525 S.W.2d 152 (Tenn.1975); Matter of Bishop, 272 S.C. 306, 251 S.E.2d 748 (1979); Dunn v. Terry, 216 Va. 234, 217 S.E.2d 849 (1975). See generally Special Project, The Collateral Consequences of a Criminal ......
-
McCuen v. McCuen, 3434.
...guardian ad litem. Green v. Boney, 233 S.C. 49, 103 S.E.2d 732; Cobb v. Garlington, 100 S.C. 51, 84 S.E. 302. In the Matter of Bishop, 272 S.C. 306, 309, 251 S.E.2d 748, 750 (1979). Because the right to the appointment of a guardian ad litem in such cases can be waived, our inquiry is not l......
-
Gossett v. Gilliam, 2258
...not mentally deficient or legally incompetent, nevertheless are burdened with the physical restraint of imprisonment. Matter of Bishop, 272 S.C. 306, 251 S.E.2d 748 (1979). In the Reporter's Note following Rule 17, it is pointed out that Rule 17(c) retains the provision of S.C.Code Ann. § 1......
-
Ex parte Foster, 25482.
...rationale for appointing a GAL for a prisoner "is not mental deficiency, but the physical restraint of imprisonment." In re Bishop, 272 S.C. 306, 251 S.E.2d 748 (1979). When a prisoner is already represented by competent counsel, or when he "has made an informed decision not to contest the ......