IN RE KITCHEL, 25372.
| Decision Date | 05 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 25372.,25372. |
| Citation | 554 S.E.2d 868,347 S.C. 291 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Dirk J. KITCHEL, Respondent. |
347 S.C. 291
554 S.E.2d 868
No. 25372.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard September 27, 2001.
Decided November 5, 2001.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon and Assistant Attorney General Tracey C. Green, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
PER CURIAM:
In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) filed formal charges against Respondent Dirk J. Kitchel. Respondent did not respond by way of answer or motion to the charges. The subpanel granted the Commission's motion to hold respondent in default and deemed respondent's failure to respond to the formal charges an admission of the factual allegations. The subpanel's order notified respondent he could present mitigating evidence at the hearing.
Respondent appeared at the hearing before the subpanel. He admitted he did not timely respond to the two complaints filed against him. Respondent further admitted he did not timely respond to the Notice of Full Investigation.
The subpanel made the following findings of fact.
347 S.C. 293Matter I
1. In February 1998, Wife retained respondent to handle a no-fault divorce. Although Wife had already prepared the complaint, respondent failed to timely file the divorce petition.
2. Subsequently, Husband filed a complaint against Wife. Respondent did not respond to Wife's attempts to contact him. Consequently, Wife filed a pro se answer to the complaint.
3. The day before the hearing, respondent notified Wife of the hearing, even though respondent received notice of the hearing two weeks earlier. Wife was out-of-state and unable to attend the hearing.
4. Respondent attended the hearing. He did not ensure the property distribution was resolved at the hearing.
5. Although aware personal property had not been delivered from Husband to Wife, respondent did not correct the finding in the final order that all property had been divided to the satisfaction of the parties.
6. Respondent failed to forward a copy of the final divorce decree to Wife.
7. Respondent did not properly respond to Wife's inquiries or provide her with her file as requested.
Matter II
1. On February 1, 1999, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for failure to pay bar dues. On May 4, 1999, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for failure to comply with CLE requirements.
2. The Court lifted the suspension for CLE non-compliance in June 1999 but did not lift the suspension for failure to pay bar dues until August 23, 1999. During the time which respondent was suspended for failure to pay bar dues, he represented Wife and other clients.
Matter III
1. Respondent failed to respond to the initial notice of Wife's complaint and to the subsequent letter by disciplinary...347 S.C. 294counsel sent pursuant to In re
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Browder v. Browder
-
In re Murph, 25479.
...set forth in the formal charges are deemed admitted, the only issue before the Court is the appropriate sanction. In the Matter of Kitchel, 347 S.C. 291, 554 S.E.2d 868 (2001); In the Matter of Thornton, 327 S.C. 193, 489 S.E.2d 198 (1997). In In the Matter of Hall, 333 S.C. 247, 251, 509 S......
-
IN RE TREXLER, 25505.
...charges currently before this Court are deemed admitted. We must simply determine the appropriate sanction. In the Matter of Kitchel, 347 S.C. 291, 554 S.E.2d 868 (2001); In the Matter of Thornton, 327 S.C. 193, 489 S.E.2d 198 The following allegations were made in the formal charges and de......
-
IN RE KITCHEL, 25881.
...was previously suspended for sixty days due to misconduct which violated many of these same provisions. In the Matter of Kitchel, 347 S.C. 291, 554 S.E.2d 868 (2001). 2. Respondent acknowledges his reinstatement, if any, will be subject to Rule 33, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, including Rule 33(f......