In re Galmore, 25105.
| Decision Date | 10 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 25105.,25105. |
| Citation | 340 S.C. 46,530 S.E.2d 378 |
| Parties | In the Matter of James C. GALMORE, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Attorney General Charles M. Condon and Senior Assistant Attorney General James G. Bogle, Jr., both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
James C. Galmore, of Horry County, pro se.
In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and disciplinary counsel have entered into an agreement under Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413, SCACR. In the agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to a public reprimand. We accept the agreement and publicly reprimand respondent.
Respondent was employed by the law firm of Yarborough and Carter as an associate. Respondent was retained to represent Tonia Bates in a personal injury matter against Pulliam Ford. Thereafter, the Yarborough firm broke up. Respondent failed to enter into a new contingency fee contract with Ms. Bates as required by Rule 1.5 of Rule 407, SCACR. Respondent appeared on Ms. Bates' behalf at her deposition but failed to reply to requests to admit filed by the defendant.
At a June 1998 roster meeting, the existence of this grievance by Ms. Bates against respondent was divulged. The trial judge directed respondent to prepare an order relieving him as counsel and giving his client thirty days to obtain a new attorney. Respondent failed to prepare the order. After receiving an order prepared by opposing counsel, the circuit court judge issued an order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. On September 3, 1998, the trial judge wrote respondent, indicating he had spoken with Ms. Bates, who still had not received her client file.
In addition to failing to take appropriate action to protect his client after requesting to be relieved, respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 12(d) regarding a motion to withdraw when a client has filed a complaint with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. Rule 12(d) of Rule 413, SCACR, provides that when it is necessary to obtain permission of a tribunal to withdraw from representation, a lawyer may reveal the fact that the client filed a complaint with the Commission to establish good cause for withdrawal. If the motion to be relieved includes a reference to the existence of a complaint which is confidential under this rule, the lawyer shall serve a copy of the motion on the client, but shall give opposing counsel only notice of the motion without revealing the existence of the complaint. The motion to be relieved shall be accompanied by a request that the records relating to the motion be sealed, and the tribunal shall take steps to prevent disclosure of the existence of the complaint to any other person. At the time respondent raised the issue of Ms. Bates's complaint, the complaint was still under investigation and was confidential under Rule 12(a).
Margaret R. Richardson is a court reporter employed by Associates Transcribing Service in Columbia. Respondent ordered a transcript of two depositions from Ms. Richardson. Ms. Richardson sent the transcript to respondent on August 6, 1997, along with a bill for $82.50. When respondent failed to pay the bill, Ms. Richardson sent a letter of complaint to the Commission. In response to a letter from the Commission, respondent stated he had paid the bill, but not until July 14, 1998.
Respondent was appointed in July 1998 to represent Alvin Rice, Jr. in a post-conviction relief (PCR) matter. Respondent failed to appear in court for the PCR hearing. Mr. Rice wrote a letter of complaint to the Commission. On September 11, 1998, the Commission wrote respondent a letter of inquiry about the complaint and requested a response within fifteen days. Respondent did not reply.
The Commission wrote respondent again on October 13, 1998, requesting a response to the complaint and reminding him that failure to respond to an inquiry from a disciplinary authority could, in and of itself, constitute grounds for discipline. A Notice of Full Investigation was served on respondent by letter dated November 23, 1998. While respondent did respond to the notice, he did not do so within the thirty days required.
Mr. Ronnie Garland retained respondent to represent him in a matter. Thereafter, respondent relocated his law office to Conway, South Carolina. Mr. Garland had great difficulty communicating with respondent and obtaining his client file. He wrote a letter of complaint to the Commission.
On October 7, 1998, the Commission wrote respondent a letter of inquiry about Mr. Garland's complaint and requested a reply within fifteen days. Respondent did not reply.1 The Commission wrote respondent a second time, requesting a reply and advising him that the failure to respond to a lawful inquiry could, in and of itself, constitute a violation. Respondent did not reply until after the thirty days required.
Earline Carn-Dockery retained respondent in April 1997. Ms. Carn-Dockery and respondent signed a retainer contract from the firm of Yarborough and Carter, with the name of the firm struck out, and Rosette Carter's name inserted.2
The retainer contract called for a non-refundable attorney's fee of $750; further, the contract called for a fee of one-third of any recovery obtained if settled without litigation, or $4,500 of recovery if a lawsuit had to be filed. The contract further provided that the fee was to be paid as follows: $400 on April 30, 1997, and $75 per month thereafter, until paid: "After $750 is paid, fee arrangements on remainder $3,750 will be negotiated." Ms. Carn-Dockery made her first payment of $400 on April 30, 1997, and every month thereafter paid $100 until she had paid the full $750. Respondent took no action on the case and later left private practice and became employed full-time with the Public Defender's Office in Conway, South Carolina.
By July 1998, Ms. Carn-Dockery had yet to receive a refund of her fee or her client file. Upon receiving a letter of complaint from Ms. Carn-Dockery, the Commission wrote respondent and requested a response to the complaint. Respondent did not reply within the fifteen days required. On November 5, 1998, the Commission sent respondent a second letter requesting a response to the complaint and reminding him that failure to respond to an inquiry from a disciplinary authority could, in and of itself, constitute grounds for discipline. Respondent did not respond. Respondent also failed to file a timely response to the Notice of Full Investigation served upon him on December 22, 1998.
Respondent took over representation of Jasper Boykin in an action against Allstate Insurance Company when Ernest Yarborough, who originally represented Mr. Boykin, was suspended from the practice of law. See Matter of Yarborough, 327 S.C. 161, 488 S.E.2d 871 (1997)
; Matter of Yarborough, 326 S.C. 62, 483 S.E.2d 473 (1997). During the course of the litigation, respondent contacted Thomas C. Salane, Esquire, attorney for Allstate, and indicated that he was going to move to be relieved as counsel due to his inability to handle the matter. A motion to withdraw was filed and granted on August 1, 1997.
However, respondent reappeared as counsel for Mr. Boykin, and continued to represent him until several months later when he again requested to be relieved. On December 5, 1997, an order was issued allowing respondent to be relieved as counsel. Mr. Boykin was thereafter represented by different counsel.
On April 30, 1998, a settlement of the litigation was arranged by the parties and confirmed in writing. A conditional order of dismissal was issued, allowing either side to petition for reinstatement if the settlement was not consummated within sixty days.
On May 12, 1998, an order for hearing on settlement was issued. The order was precipitated by a letter from Mr. Boykin to the judge, complaining that he did not agree to the settlement. Mr. Boykin stated in the letter that he had spoken with Yarborough and respondent about his case and had agreed to pay Yarborough $2,300 to oversee respondent's handling of the case and to pay respondent an additional $1,000.
Respondent later maintained he was unaware of the payment by Mr. Boykin to Yarborough. Respondent refused to allow Yarborough to work on the case or supervise his work. However, respondent failed to report to the Commission Yarborough's offer to practice law while under suspension.
Mary R. White retained Yarborough in 1996 to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Yarborough
...sanctioned by this Court for his conduct in the Boykin and White matters, as well as some other unrelated matters. See In re Galmore, 340 S.C. 46, 530 S.E.2d 378 (2000) (agreement for public reprimand accepted). As to the Boykin case, we found that Galmore failed to report respondent's offe......