Bloom, In re, 20070

• Decision Date: 22 July 1975
• Docket Number: No. 20070,20070
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: In the Matter of Ira J. BLOOM, Respondent.

Page 143

217 S.E.2d 143

265 S.C. 86

In the Matter of Ira J. BLOOM, Respondent.

No. 20070.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 22, 1975.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. A. Camden Lewis, Columbia, for complainant.

Edward K. Pritchard, Charleston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The respondent is a practicing attorney in Charleston County and is primarily engaged in criminal defense practice. On April 24, 1974, he represented a client before a magistrate in connection with charges arising out of an incident at Folly Beach, South Carolina. The incident had been investigated by Folly Beach Acting Police Chief Roy Jordan and his subordinate, Officer Vance Ott. On May 3, 1974, after the disposition of the case, the respondent and an investigator employed by his law firm gave Officer Jordan one hundred ($100.00) dollars in cash and Officer Ott fifty ($50.00) dollars in cash.

The panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline specifically found that the payment was not a reward for the result obtained at the trial on April 24, although the cash payments certainly gave this appearance. Further, the panel found that there was 'no evidence that any of the Respondent's activity in connection with the handling of the Seigler case were improper and there is no evidence that there were any promises made by Respondent or payments made for or in connection with the disposition of the Seigler case.' The full Board concurred.

The panel's finding and the concurrence of the full Board are advisory only and not binding upon this Court. These are, however, entitled to great respect, particularly when the transcript is lengthy and the inferences to be drawn from the testimony depend largely on the credibility of the witnesses, which, of course is assessed best by personal observation at the hearing. See In Re Tom Friday, 263 S.C. 156, 208 S.E.2d 535 (1974). The panel's finding is not without substantial evidentiary support and our treatment of this case is based on acceptance of the findings of fact of the panel.

The panel and Board have recommended that the respondent be adjudged guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (Supreme Court Rule 32) in that the cash payment was made to curry favor with the officers for the purpose of solicitation. The cash payment cased a violation of DR 2--103(B):

'(A) lawyer shall not compensate or give anything of value to a person or organization to recommend or secure his employment by client, or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in his employment by a client.'

The payment also violated S.S.Code § 16--213 which prohibits extra compensation for officers. Hence, the respondent violated DR 1--102(A)(5):

'A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.'

See In Re Crosby, 256 S.C. 325, 182 S.E.2d 289.

The respondent argues that the payment was merely an expression of appreciation for the officers' faithful discharge of their duties in the past and for the cooperation that each had given the respondent in his practice. Respondent stated that the larger sum was given to Jordan because of greater contact in the past with him. Furthermore, respondent urges that he should be vindicated because the two officers had publicly expressed their intention to resign.

Officer Jordan testified that the payment was, at least in part, for prior cases he had referred to the respondent. Obviously, this supports the conclusion that the payment was part of a plan of solicitation. Moreover, when the payment was made, the respondent knew that the officers had not officially tendered a resignation. The respondent also was aware that when and if officer Jordan resigned, he was seeking employment in a law enforcement agency in ...