Crosby, In re, 19247
| Decision Date | 23 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19247,19247 |
| Citation | 182 S.E.2d 289,256 S.C. 325 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Stanley B. CROSBY, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., and John P. Wilson and Irvin D. Parker, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbia, for complainant.
Thomas H. Pope, and Robert D. Schumpert, Newberry, for respondent.
Respondent Stanley B. Crosby, an attorney, was found guilty by a majority of The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of professional misconduct in that he on two occasions solicited business in violation of Canon 28 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, Supreme Court Rule 33. There was dissent on The Board from this finding. A majority of The Board has recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law because of such misconduct.
The record amply supports the findings of The Board that respondent was guilty of the charges against him and we adopt their recommendations in that regard.
However, we disagree with The Board's recommendation that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. In our opinion, a public reprimand is proper punishment under this record, and we modify the recommendations of The Board to this extent.
Stanley B. Crosby, therefore, stands publicly reprimanded by this Court and warned against the repetition of any similar conduct in the future.
We agree with the Per Curiam Order holding that the record amply supports the findings of The Board that respondent solicited business in violation of Canon 28 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, Supreme Court Rule 33, and we adopt their recommendation in that regard.
It is our view that The Board's recommendation that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law should also be accepted. The hearing panel, after finding the respondent guilty of soliciting business at the Sarvis automobile repair shop on two separate occasions, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Condon
...his employee is engaged in solicitation of professional employment for attorney constitutes professional misconduct); Matter of Crosby, 256 S.C. 325, 182 S.E.2d 289 (1971) (attorney improperly solicited business). Thus, not only does Petitioner's solicitation of legal clients raise possible......
-
Bloom, In re, 20070
...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 thei......
-
Beattie, Matter of, 21299
...See: In Matter of Reaves, 272 S.C. 213, 250 S.E.2d 329 (1978); In re Craven, 267 S.C. 33, 225 S.E.2d 861 (1976); In re Crosby, 256 S.C. 325, 182 S.E.2d 289 (1971), and In re Bloom, 265 S.C. 86, 217 S.E.2d 143 (1975). The facts in each case are different. Each is aggravated in its own way. T......
- Crowe v. Lowe