In re Owen, Appellate Case No. 2016–001060
| Citation | 417 S.C. 85,789 S.E.2d 48 (Mem) |
| Decision Date | 20 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 27650,Appellate Case No. 2016–001060 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | In the Matter of Paul Winford Owen, Jr., Respondent. |
Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and William C. Campbell, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
John P. Freeman, Esquire, of Columbia, for Respondent.
In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of an admonition or public reprimand with conditions. We accept the Agreement and issue a public reprimand with conditions as set forth hereafter in this opinion. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.
By order dated October 27, 2015, respondent was sanctioned by the Honorable David R. Duncan, a judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina, and assessed a fine of $5,000.00. The sanction arose out of respondent's conduct in a bankruptcy court hearing held on August 25, 2015. At the time of the hearing, the parties were in binding arbitration and respondent's arguments were still under consideration by the arbitrator. Nevertheless, during the bankruptcy hearing, respondent made arguments based on the United States Supreme Court decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans , 574 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 790, 190 L.Ed.2d 650 (2015)
. Respondent admits the arbitration proceeding was the sole forum before which to raise his argument under Jesinoski and that he should not have presented the Jesinoski argument to the bankruptcy court. As a result of respondent's conduct, the bankruptcy court and opposing party were required to endure a proceeding which was groundless.
Further, respondent admits that, at the hearing, he told Judge Duncan he was proceeding at the direction of the Bankruptcy Trustee when, in actuality, he was responsible for the argument. Respondent later wrote a letter to Judge Duncan in which he called attention to his misstatement and apologized to all concerned.
Respondent acknowledges the Court deserves no less than complete, candid disclosures which are truthful at the time they are made. He agrees his misstatement regarding the Bankruptcy Trustee was not excused by his corrective disclosure in his letter to the bankruptcy court.
Respondent admits that by his conduct he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (); Rule 3.1 (); Rule 3.3 (); Rule 3.4 (); 8.4(a) (); Rule 8.4(d) (); and Rule 8.4(e) ().
Respondent also admits he has violated the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) ().
We find respondent's misconduct warrants a public reprimand.1 Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (Commission). Within six (6) months...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Castro v. State, Appellate Case No. 2015–000021
-
In re Owen, Appellate Case No. 2017-001453
...of justice); a letter of caution in September 2014, citing Rule 1.3, RPC; and a public reprimand in July 2016, see In the Matter of Owen , 417 S.C. 85, 789 S.E.2d 48 (2016), citing Rule 1.1, Rule 3.1 (a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein,......