In re Long
| Decision Date | 30 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 25336.,25336. |
| Citation | 551 S.E.2d 586,346 S.C. 110 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jefferson M. LONG, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Russell B. Long, of Myrtle Beach, for respondent.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon and Assistant Attorney General Tracey C. Green, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
In this attorney disciplinary proceeding, the sub-panel and the full panel recommended an indefinite suspension. We impose a two-year definite suspension.
The Commission on Lawyer Conduct filed formal charges against respondent, Jefferson M. Long, Jr., regarding two client matters and his guilty plea in federal court. Respondent was placed on interim suspension on July 22, 1999. In re Long, 335 S.C. 584, 518 S.E.2d 264 (1999). Respondent did not answer the formal charges and was not present at the hearing. However, in a letter to the Court dated December 5, 2000, he acknowledged the pending disciplinary charges and admitted the infractions alleged against him. In the letter, respondent sought to tender his resignation from the practice of law.
Respondent pled guilty to one count of violating Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code by knowingly and willfully making a false statement of a material fact in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. Respondent's plea arose out the federal sting operation "Operation Lost Trust."
Respondent was retained to represent Client A in a criminal matter. Despite Client A's requests, respondent failed to perfect an appeal as required by Rule 602, SCACR, and In re Anonymous Member of the Bar, 303 S.C. 306, 400 S.E.2d 483 (1991).1 Client A also repeatedly requested his file; however, respondent delayed for an unreasonable amount of time before releasing the file. Respondent failed to properly communicate with Client A regarding his conviction and appeal.
Respondent was retained to represent Client B in a criminal matter. Despite Client B's requests, respondent failed to perfect an appeal as required by Rule 602, SCACR, and In re Anonymous Member of the Bar, 303 S.C. 306, 400 S.E.2d 483 (1991). Respondent incorrectly advised Client B that he had no grounds for appeal and failed to properly communicate with Client B regarding his conviction and appeal.
The authority to discipline attorneys and the manner in which the discipline is given rests entirely with the Supreme Court. E.g., In re Yarborough, 337 S.C. 245, 524 S.E.2d 100 (1999)
. Because respondent failed to answer the formal charges against him, this failure constitutes an admission of the factual allegations. See Rule 24(a), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Consequently, we need only determine the appropriate sanction for respondent. See In re Rast, 337 S.C. 588, 524 S.E.2d 619 (1999); In re Thornton, 327 S.C. 193, 489 S.E.2d 198 (1997).
Respondent violated several Rules of Professional Conduct by: (1) failing to provide competent representation; (2) failing to abide by a client's decisions regarding the scope of representation; (3) failing to diligently represent a client; (4) failing to properly communicate with a client; (5) failing to safekeep a client's property; (6) improperly terminating representation of a client; (7) failing to properly serve as an advisor to a client; and (8) violating the rules of professional conduct; (9) committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (10) engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude; (11) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and (12) engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. See Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, 2.1, & 8.4, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR.
Additionally, respondent violated the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement by: (1) violating the Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) failing to respond to a lawful demand from a disciplinary authority; (3) being convicted of a serious crime; (4) engaging in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law; and (5) violating the oath of office taken upon admission to practice law in this state. See Rule 7(a), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.
In other disciplinary cases involving criminal convictions stemming from "Operation Lost Trust" we have imposed both a definite and an indefinite suspension. See In re Ferguson, 314 S.C. 278, 443 S.E.2d 905 (1994)
(indefinite suspension); In re Limehouse, 307 S.C. 278, 414 S.E.2d 783 (1992) (indefinite suspension); In re Crow, 308 S.C. 128, 417 S.E.2d 534 (1992) (six-month definite suspension). We find that respondent's criminal conviction relating to "Operation Lost Trust" and his misconduct in the two client matters warrant the sanction of a two-year definite suspension.
Accordingly, respondent is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In The Matter Of Samuel Francis Crews
...authority to discipline attorneys and the manner in which the discipline is given rests entirely with this Court. In re Long, 346 S.C. 110, 112, 551 S.E.2d 586, 587 (2001).DISCUSSION On review, Respondent raises a number of procedural arguments and contends that the Panel erred in finding t......
-
In re Hazzard
...The authority to discipline attorneys and the manner in which discipline is given rests entirely with this Court. In re Long, 346 S.C. 110, 551 S.E.2d 586 (2001). The Court is not bound by the panel's recommendation and may make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. In re Larkin,......
-
In re Zenner, 25418.
...The authority to discipline attorneys and the manner in which discipline is given rests entirely with the Supreme Court. In re Long, 346 S.C. 110, 551 S.E.2d 586 (2001). The Court may make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, and is not bound by the Panel's recommendation. In re......
-
In re Braghirol
...in which the discipline is given rests entirely with this Court. In re McFarland, 360 S.C. 101, 600 S.E.2d 537 (2004); In re Long, 346 S.C. 110, 551 S.E.2d 586 (2001). Under the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE), respondent is in default, and therefore, he is deemed to have a......