Chastain, Matter of, 24151
| Decision Date | 10 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24151,24151 |
| Citation | 450 S.E.2d 578,316 S.C. 438 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Randall M. CHASTAIN, Respondent. |
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. James G. Bogle, Jr., and Deputy Atty. Gen. J. Emory Smith, Jr., Columbia, for complainant.
Wilburn Brewer, Jr., and Thomas C. Legare, Jr., of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs & Pollard, LLP, Columbia, for respondent.
In this attorney grievance matter, respondent admits that he has committed ethical violations and consents to a definite suspension pursuant to Paragraph 28 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure, Rule 413, SCACR. 1 We accept respondent's admission and suspend him from the practice of law.
Ms. Hunt paid respondent a $10,000 retainer to represent her in a lawsuit. Respondent admits that he failed to return telephone calls from Ms. Hunt and failed to respond to letters sent by Ms. Hunt and another individual involved in the lawsuit. In addition, respondent did not return any portion of the $10,000 retainer.
Mr. and Mrs. Kelcourse paid respondent a $10,000 retainer for his representation in an adoption proceeding. Respondent admits that after the Kelcourses sent a facsimile to him terminating the attorney-client relationship, respondent continued to work on the case and did not return the $10,000 retainer. Respondent also admits he did not respond to telephone calls and correspondence from the Kelcourses.
Respondent was retained by the Town of Hilton Head to prepare a memorandum concerning the constitutionality of a sign ordinance. Subsequently, respondent failed to send a memorandum to the town, and failed to respond to telephone calls and correspondence concerning the progress of the memorandum. In addition, respondent admits that he failed to return the fee paid to him for the project.
Mr. Cuppia paid respondent a $5,000 retainer for representation in a domestic matter. After Mr. Cuppia obtained an out-of-court agreement with his wife, Mr. Cuppia requested that respondent return the unused portion of the retainer. Respondent admits that he failed to return the unused portion of the retainer.
Ms. Byars retained respondent to represent her in a domestic matter. Respondent admits that he failed to answer telephone calls and correspondence from both Ms. Byars and an attorney subsequently retained by Ms. Byars.
Mr. Farmer paid respondent a $5,000 retainer to assist another attorney in filing a civil action challenging the constitutionality of South Carolina's machine gun laws. Respondent admits that he failed to answer telephone calls and correspondence from the other attorney and Mr. Farmer, and that he failed to return the retainer as requested by Mr. Farmer.
Mr. Hughes retained respondent to represent him in an appeal of a domestic matter. Respondent admits that he did not answer telephone calls and correspondence from Mr. Hughes concerning the appellate court's award of attorney's fees.
Mr. Housand paid respondent a $3,500 retainer to assist another attorney in handling a domestic matter. Respondent admits that he failed to answer telephone calls and correspondence from the other attorney and Mr. Housand, and that he failed to return the retainer as requested by Mr. Housand.
Ms. Naumann hired respondent to represent her in a domestic matter. Respondent admits that he failed to answer telephone calls and correspondence from Ms. Naumann, and that he failed to return the balance of a retainer paid by Ms. Naumann.
Respondent admits that he failed to cooperate with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (the Board) during the investigation of the grievances filed against him. Specifically, respondent admits that he did not return calls from the Board's investigator, that he failed to answer correspondence from the Board, and that he failed to timely comply with two subpoenas duces tecum.
In our opinion, respondent's conduct warrants a definite suspension. By failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, and by failing to adequately communicate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney Grievance v. Fezell
...446-49 (1994); In re Lince, 200 N.W.2d 56, 58 (N.D.1972); In re Gastineau, 317 Or. 545, 857 P.2d 136, 142 (1993); In re Chastain, 316 S.C. 438, 450 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1994); In re Clark, 99 Wash.2d 702, 663 P.2d 1339, 1341-42 (1983); Committee on Legal Ethics of W. Va. State Bar v. Keenan, 19......
-
In re Chastain
...Respondent and ordered him to pay $30,790 in restitution to his clients before applying for readmission to the Bar. Matter of Chastain, 316 S.C. 438, 450 S.E.2d 578 (1994).1 The misconduct relating to the retainer fees included a $5,000 retainer paid by client David Farmer and a $3,500 reta......
-
In re Matson
...S.E.2d 356 (1995) (60 day suspension); Matter of Tootle, 319 S.C. 392, 461 S.E.2d 824 (1995) (4 month suspension); Matter of Chastain, 316 S.C. 438, 450 S.E.2d 578 (1994) (2 year suspension); Matter of Ballard, 312 S.C. 227, 439 S.E.2d 846 (1994) (1 year suspension); Matter of Nida, 315 S.C......
-
Holler, Matter of
...227, 439 S.E.2d 846 (1994) (1 year suspension); In re Palmer, 298 S.C. 324, 380 S.E.2d 813 (1989) (1 year suspension); In re Chastain, 316 S.C. 438, 450 S.E.2d 578 (1994) (2 year In the present case, the gravity of Attorney's misconduct warrants a sanction of suspension. In mitigation, we c......