IN RE RICE, 24917.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 24917.,24917. |
| Citation | 514 S.E.2d 575,334 S.C. 498 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Keith Andrew RICE, Respondent. |
Attorney General Charles M. Condon and Senior Assistant Attorney General James G. Bogle, Jr., both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Keith Andrew Rice of Aiken, pro se.
In this attorney grievance matter, Keith Andrew Rice (Respondent) is charged with engaging in misconduct in violation of various provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) contained in Rule 407, SCACR, and the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413, SCACR.
The Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Commission) began investigating this matter in March 1997. Respondent, an Aiken attorney, did not reply to two letters the Commission sent him in April 1997; nor did he reply to the notice of full investigation sent to him in January 1998. Respondent did not respond to the notice of formal charges, which was personally served upon him in April 1998 by an agent of the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED), and went into default.
Respondent did not appear at the subpanel hearing on July 30, 1998. The subpanel, concerned about Respondent's failure to respond to the Commission's inquiries, delayed consideration of the matter and directed the Commission to serve a subpoena to appear upon Respondent. A SLED agent personally served the subpoena to appear upon Respondent. He did not appear at the rescheduled hearing on August 13, 1998.
This Court sent Respondent a notice of the hearing in this matter by certified mail to his last known address, but the return receipt was signed by a person other than Respondent. Respondent did not appear at the hearing before this Court. Respondent is on inactive status with the Bar.
Respondent was appointed as conservator for Deborah Bush (Mother) in June 1995. Respondent filed an inventory and appraisement in August 1995. The probate court wrote Respondent in July and August 1996, asking him to file the annual accounting. Respondent filed an accounting on September 17, 1996, showing about $24,000 received in Mother's accounts, $20,000 disbursed, and a fee of $1,074 paid to Respondent.
During the following months, Ms. Bush's daughter, Natashia Bush (Daughter), was unable to contact Respondent in person or by telephone. In a letter to disciplinary counsel, Daughter stated she had been granted physical guardianship of Mother. She stated that Respondent "apparently stopped his law practice without giving me any type of notification or any way to keep in contact with him." She accused Respondent of giving Mother a blank check in December 1997 without her approval. She stated Mother's bills had not been paid and she had "no idea" what transactions had occurred in Mother's accounts.
The probate court issued an order in April 1997 appointing Daughter as temporary successor conservator. Respondent did not make a final accounting, but did deliver Mother's bank records to Daughter when she was appointed as conservator. The Commission's investigation uncovered no evidence Respondent had embezzled any funds or mishandled Mother's accounts, other than allowing her to write two checks to herself.
The Commission received unconfirmed reports that Respondent has medical problems. Other than that report, the record sheds no light on why Respondent failed to respond to the Commission's inquiries or whether he ever intends to practice law again. The subpanel recommended Respondent receive a definite suspension of nine months, and the full panel adopted that recommendation in October 1998.
A disciplinary violation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Matter of Yarborough, 327 S.C. 161, 488 S.E.2d 871 (1997). While the Court is not bound by the findings of the subpanel and full panel, their findings are entitled to great weight, particularly when the inferences to be drawn from the testimony depend on the credibility of witnesses. Id. The Court may make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, and is not bound by the panel's recommendation. Burns v. Clayton, 237 S.C. 316, 117 S.E.2d 300 (1960). The Court must administer the sanction it deems appropriate after a thorough review of the record. Matter of Kirven, 267 S.C. 669, 230 S.E.2d 899 (1976).
After examining the facts, we find Respondent's misconduct has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent's failure to answer the formal charges or appear before the hearing panel constitutes an admission of the factual allegations. Rule 24, RLDE.
In the Bush matter, Respondent committed misconduct by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in filing the annual accounting when due, and in failing to file the final accounting. Rule 1.3, RPC. Respondent also committed misconduct by failing to respond to the Commission's inquiries and requests for information. See Matter of Thompson, 310 S.C. 461, 427 S.E.2d 644 (1993) (); Matter of Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982) (); Rule 7(a)(3), RLDE.
The appropriate sanction for neglect of several client matters generally is a public reprimand, provided the clients are not greatly prejudiced. Matter of Moore, 329 S.C. 294, 494 S.E.2d 804 (1997); Matter of Alexander, 301 S.C. 212, 391 S.E.2d 254 (1990); accord Matter of Celsor, 330 S.C. 497, 499 S.E.2d 809 (1998) (); Matter of Tullis, 330 S.C. 502, 499 S.E.2d 811 (1998) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pope v. Heritage Communities, Inc.
- State v. Adkins
- Burroughs v. Worsham
- Pope v. Heritage Cmtys, Inc.