Brooks, Matter of, 21220
| Decision Date | 06 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21220,21220 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Walter Warren BROOKS, Respondent. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Keith M. Babcock, Columbia, for complainant.
Robert R. Carpenter, Rock Hill, for respondent.
This is a disciplinary matter. Respondent Walter W. Brooks was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1966. Since his admission respondent has actively engaged in the practice of law, devoting the vast majority of his time to criminal defense at the trial level.
This proceeding was initiated pursuant to our previous Rule on Disciplinary Procedure 1 by the service of a Notice and Complaint on January 20, 1977. The final Amended Complaint charged respondent with a garden variety of twenty-one separate acts of misconduct, most of them directly involving him in alleged criminal activity. The matter came on for a panel hearing on July 19, 1978, which proceedings continued through August 20, 1978. Three of the twenty-one charges were stricken by the panel, and the remaining eighteen allegations grouped into thirteen separate categories for purposes of consideration and decision.
All three panel members agreed that seven of the thirteen categories of charges should be dismissed for lack of proof, since the allegations rested on the sole testimony in each instance of one of various convicted felons and drug dealers called to testify against respondent. Other charges were similarly dismissed by the majority of the panel, which ultimately found respondent guilty of two acts of misconduct. The panel members differed in their individual recommendations of sanction. The overall view unanimously adopted by the Executive Committee of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline was that respondent receive a public reprimand. However, one panel member concluded a private reprimand was sufficient to the extent of his individual findings of misconduct; whereas, the panel chairman was of the view that respondent was also guilty of additional acts of misconduct, and recommended he be permanently disbarred.
This Court is not bound to accept the recommendation of the hearing panel adopted by the Executive Committee as set forth in its final report and certified to the Court. The duty of adjudging the professional conduct of members of the Bar and taking appropriate disciplinary action therefor, if warranted, rests exclusively with this Court. See cases collected in West's South Carolina Digest, Attorney and Client, at Key Number 57. The distinct nature of these proceedings was aptly described in the case of Burns v. Clayton, 237 S.C. 316, 117 S.E.2d 300 (1960):
The fallacy underlying these contentions (respondents' exceptions) is that they overlook the following fundamentals: that this is not a criminal proceeding nor an appeal from the judgment of a lower court; that the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are officers of this court, commissioned and charged with the duty of investigating alleged misconduct on the part of their fellow members of the bar of this State and of reporting to this court the proceedings of their inquiry, and their findings and recommendations; that the Board's report is advisory only, this court being in nowise bound to accept its findings of fact or to concur in its recommendations; and upon this court alone rests the duty and the grave responsibility of adjudging, from the record, whether or not professional misconduct has been shown, and of taking appropriate disciplinary action thereabout.
The first act of misconduct which the panel found is evidenced by respondent's conviction in the Court of General Sessions for Richland County for failure to obey a police order to stop in violation of the "blue light law." Section 56-5-750, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976). Respondent was sentenced to serve three years or pay a fine of $3000.00. This charge is admitted by respondent. The panel and Executive Committee were of the opinion that respondent thereby engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 32 of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice). We accept the findings of the panel and board and concur in the conclusion of misconduct.
The overall panel report also contained a finding that respondent, in the course of preparing for the trial of the blue light offense, caused to be prepared an affidavit for the signature of one of the police officers involved in the chase and arrest of respondent which knowingly misrepresented the incident. The affidavit was found to contain statements designed to diminish the degree of respondent's culpability with respect to the blue light offense. We have thoroughly examined the record and conclude the evidence sustains the finding of the panel and board in respect to the preparation of the false affidavit, and adjudge this conduct to once again violate Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5). We are of the further opinion that respondent, by causing this affidavit to be so prepared, has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4).
The affidavit was typed by respondent's secretary who also obtained the signature of the affiant. The affidavit was then falsely and fraudulently notarized by the secretary who signed her sister's name to the notarial certificate. When the fact that the secretary's sister was not a notary came to light, a false application was then prepared in the sister's name and signed by the secretary for her appointment to the office of notary public. The majority of the panel found that respondent's participation was limited to the preparation of the affidavit, and the compounding fraudulent acts surrounding its notarization were accomplished by respondent's secretary without his knowledge or assent. We reject this finding.
In arriving at its earlier conclusion that respondent prepared or caused to be prepared the affidavit, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...findings of facts regarding misconduct of attorney who solicited business were supported by clear and convincing evidence); In re Brooks, 274 S.C. 601, 267 S.E.2d 74, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 401, 66 L.Ed.2d 246 (1980) (Supreme Court found there was clear and convincing proof t......
-
Roach v. Martin
...in the matter. After the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a formal opinion disbarring Brooks on May 6, 1980, see In re Brooks, 274 S.C. 601, 267 S.E.2d 74 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 401, 66 L.Ed.2d 246 (1980), the state post-conviction court subpoenaed the disbarment p......
-
Edwards, Matter of
...111 (1977), the Court disbarred Gabrielle Ann Scott Elliott for making false representations on her bar application. In In re Brooks, 274 S.C. 601, 267 S.E.2d 74, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 401, 66 L.Ed.2d 246 (1980), the Court disbarred a lawyer who caused a false affidavit to b......
-
Brooks v. Brooks, 21634
...failure to pay $500 per month toward the balance remaining on the judgments. Respondent is a disbarred attorney, see Matter of Brooks, 274 S.C. 601, 267 S.E.2d 74 (1980). Respondent stated that at the time the agreement was signed he was unemployed but fully expected to be practicing law ag......