In re Lee, 26211.
| Decision Date | 09 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 26211.,26211. |
| Citation | 636 S.E.2d 624 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Robert E. LEE, Respondent. |
Henry B. Richardson, Jr., of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Kevin M. Barth, of Ballenger, Barth & Hoefer, L.L.P., of Florence, for respondent.
In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent pursuant to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to a public reprimand or definite suspension not to exceed two (2) years. We accept the Agreement and definitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state for one hundred and eighty (180) days. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in South Carolina in 1991. He was employed as a shareholder in a law firm (the Firm) primarily engaged in representing clients insured by liability insurance companies. The client in the cases mentioned hereafter was insured by an insurance carrier that paid the Firm the fees, costs, and expenses of the defense afforded to the insured client.
On approximately nineteen occasions between November 9, 2004, and August 13, 2005, respondent over billed the insurance carrier by including or causing to be included in its billing statement attorneys fees for traveling to depositions held out of town when, in fact, respondent knew he had participated in the depositions by telephone at the Firm's office. In addition, respondent over charged the insurance carrier for costs by billing the carrier for mileage for traveling to the depositions on approximately seventeen of the nineteen occasions.1
The overcharges came to light when respondent's secretary expressed concerns to the Firm's office manager who, in turn, reported the concerns to the Firm's senior partner. The senior partner confronted respondent about the overcharges. When confronted, respondent was immediately candid about the overcharges.
Upon discovering respondent's misrepresentation, the Firm reviewed its files and determined the overcharges had occurred in three files, all for the same client insured by the same insurance carrier. The Firm estimated the amount of fees and costs over billed by respondent were $10,279.40.2 Thereafter, the senior partner made arrangements to meet with respondent, respondent's counsel, and ODC.
The next day, respondent, his counsel, and the senior partner met with ODC. Respondent reported his misconduct. Immediately upon returning to the Firm's office after the meeting, respondent wrote a personal check to the Firm in the amount of $10,279.40 which was to be paid by the Firm to the insurance carrier to reimburse it for the overcharges.
With respondent's assistance, the Firm compiled a complete and thorough report documenting respondent's misconduct. Respondent and the senior partner signed the report, certifying it to be correct and accurate. The report was promptly furnished to ODC.
The following day, at respondent's expense, respondent and the senior partner traveled out of state to the home office of the insurance carrier. Respondent personally reported his misconduct and promised to provide the carrier with a copy of the report prepared for ODC.3 The Firm paid the carrier $10,279.40 without any preconditions or requests for a release.
With knowledge of the foregoing, the insurance carrier has continued to refer files for defense of its insured to the Firm and to respondent for defense and, in fact, has given respondent permission to continue working on the three files in which the overcharging occurred and on new files. The Firm, however, has not allowed respondent to directly bill the insurance carrier and, instead, has had a shareholder review billing information complied by respondent prior to statements being submitted to the carrier.
Respondent has no previous disciplinary history. To the best knowledge, information, and belief of ODC, respondent has been fully forthcoming in responding to questions about his misconduct to the Firm, the insurance carrier, and Disciplinary Counsel and has fully cooperated with its investigation.
Respondent admits that, by his misconduct, he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (); Rule 1.5 (); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Moses
...overcharged clients more than $14,000 by submitting fraudulent time entries and travel reimbursement requests), and In re Lee, 370 S.C. 501, 636 S.E.2d 624 (2006) (suspending for 180 days a lawyer who overbilled a client approximately $10,000 over a nine-month period) for support. Responden......
-
In re Gray
...for a period of 180 days. In making this recommendation, the Panel primarily relied on this Court's decision of In the Matter of Lee, 370 S.C. 501, 636 S.E.2d 624 (2006) (holding suspension for 180 days was appropriate sanction for attorney who overcharged client by charging fees for travel......
-
In the Matter of Lee
...whether he had the requisite character and fitness to practice law in this State prior to his reinstatement. In the Matter of Lee, 370 S.C. 501, 636 S.E.2d 624 (2006). On December 11, 2006, petitioner filed a Petition for Reinstatement and the matter was referred to the CCF. After conductin......