Cate v. Rivers, 18348
| Decision Date | 14 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 18348,18348 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | M. N. CATE, Complainant, v. D. N. RIVERS, Respondent. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys. Gen. William L. Pope, C. T. Goolsby, Jr., Grady L. Patterson, Jr., Julian L. Johnson, Columbia, for complainant.
Claud N. Sapp, Columbia, for respondent.
This matter is before the Court as the result of a report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommending disciplinary action against the respondent, a member of the South Carolina Bar, upon findings that he had been guilty of misconduct as defined by Section 4 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure for Attorneys, in that his conduct in the matters under inquiry had tended to pollute and obstruct the administration of justice, reflected adversely on the legal profession of this State, constituted a crime of moral turpitude, and violated the Canons of Professional Ethics (Section 29 and 32 of Rule 33 of the Rules of the South Carolina Supreme Court).
The action of the Board followed the filing of a complaint against the respondent relative to his actions and conduct in handling twelve adoption proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas for Jasper County, South Carolina. The specific charges of professional misconduct against the respondent were:
(1) That he forged the name of the Honorable John Grimball, Presiding Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, to the decrees in twelve adoption cases;
(2) That he forged the signature of Randolph Murdaugh, Esquire, as Special Referee, to the Referee's Report in six of the foregoing cases;
(3) That he forged the names of the plaintiffs upon the complaints in each of the twelve adoption cases; and
(4) That he filed the proceedings in each of the foregoing cases in the Office of the Clerk of Court for Jasper County as final judgments, knowing that the documents had been forged.
Upon the filing of the complaint against the respondent, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline appointed a panel of three Commissioners to conduct a hearing into respondent's alleged misconduct and practices as a member of the bar of this State, as required by Section 9 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure. A hearing was held on March 23, 1964, and the testimony taken. Respondent appeared at this hearing with counsel and testified. Upon the completion of the testimony, the hearing was adjourned so as to afford all parties an opportunity to review the record prior to argument. After due notice, the panel heard arguments on July 13, 1964, and subsequently filed its report under date of August 20, 1964, finding the respondent guilty of the charges and recommending that he be disbarred from the practice of law in this State. Thereafter, after due notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure, the Board reviewed the findings and recommendations of the panel and adopted its findings of fact, but recommended indefinite suspension of the respondent instead of disbarment as recommended by the panel. The matter is now before us pursuant to a Rule to Show Cause issued on February 11, 1965, in accordance with Section 13 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure, directed to respondent, requiring him 'to show cause before this Court * * * on April 16, 1965, why the said report of the Board of Commissioners should not be confirmed and such disciplinary order as this Court may deem proper be issued.' In the return of the respondent he has, in addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the charges against him, raised certain questions concerning the procedure before the Board, which will be first considered.
The respondent contends that he was prejudiced in the presentation of his case to the Board by its failure to furnish him in advance with a copy of the report and recommendations of the panel. This contention cannot be sustained. First, the record before us indicates that respondent did receive notice of the recommendations of the panel prior to the hearing before the entire Board. The report of the Board to this Court contains the following statement: 'Due notice of more than thirty (30) days was given to all parties and their counsel of the recommendation of the panel and of the time and place of the Board meeting at which said report was to be considered for the purpose of determining its action thereon, and advising them of their right to appear before the Board at such time to be heard in oral argument and to submit briefs.' In addition, although the record shows that respondent and his counsel appeared before the Board and argued the matter, there is no showing that any objection was raised at that time as to notice or that any prejudice has resulted. Under such circumstances, the failure to interpose timely objection constituted a waiver of any failure to receive prior notice of the contents of the panel's recommendations.
Under the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure, when complaint is filed against an attorney, the chairman of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline appoints a panel composed of three members of the Board to take the testimony and report its findings. When the report of the panel is made, the Board then reviews the record and makes its report to this Court if any public disciplinary action is recommended. The rules are silent as to participation by members of the panel in the review by the Board of the panel's recommendations. The respondent contends that the members of the panel participated in this case in the review of its findings and recommendations, and that this was error. The record is silent as to whether the members of the panel participated in the review by the Board. Assuming however that they did so participate, the respondent has failed to show any prejudice therefrom and, in the absence of such showing, the present contention cannot be sustained. The record shows that the Board, fifteen in number, adopted the findings of fact by the panel, but recommended a lesser degree of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daley, In re
...937, 244 N.E.2d 456 (1968); Black v. State Bar of California, 7 Cal.3d 676, 103 Cal.Rptr. 288, 499 P.2d 968 (1968); Cate v. Rivers, 246 S.C. 35, 142 S.E.2d 369 (1965); Florida State Bar v. Massfeller, 170 So.2d 834 (Fla.1974); In re Pennica, 36 N.J. 401, 177 A.2d 721 (1962); In re Rouss, 22......
-
In re Belding, 25750.
...S.C. 482, 409 S.E.2d 412 (1991) (indefinite suspension for signing circuit court judge's name to expungement order); Cate v. Rivers, 246 S.C. 35, 142 S.E.2d 369 (1965) (disbarment for signing judge's name to twelve adoption decrees); State v. Belcher, 249 S.C. 301, 153 S.E.2d 921 (1967) (di......
-
Gantt, Matter of, 22375
...911 (1978); In Re Elliott, 268 S.C. 522, 235 S.E.2d 111 (1977); State v. Belcher, 249 S.C. 301, 153 S.E.2d 921 (1967); Cate v. Rivers, 246 S.C. 35, 142 S.E.2d 369 (1965); Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 169. While there was strong sentiment among the members of the Court in favor of disbarment, we conc......
-
Mozingo, Matter of
...after forging the signature of a special referee and a circuit court judge to reports and decrees in a divorce case); Cate v. Rivers, 246 S.C. 35, 142 S.E.2d 369 (1965) (attorney who forged judge's signature to adoption decrees was Respondent's conduct in the other matters also violated the......