In re Tullis, 25413.

• Decision Date: 11 February 2002
• Docket Number: No. 25413.,25413.
• Citation: 348 S.C. 235,559 S.E.2d 833
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: In the Matter of Rodman C. TULLIS, Respondent.

348 S.C. 235

559 S.E.2d 833

In the Matter of Rodman C. TULLIS, Respondent.

No. 25413.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard January 10, 2002.

Decided February 11, 2002.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon and Senior Assistant Attorney General James G. Bogle, Jr., both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel, for petitioner.

Rodman C. Tullis, of Spartanburg, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Formal charges were filed against Rodman C. Tullis ("Respondent") on July 11, 2000.¹ Respondent failed to respond to the charges and an Affidavit of Default was filed on September 12, 2000. Therefore, under Rule 24 of Rule 413, SCACR, the charges were deemed admitted. The following charges were filed against Respondent.

I. Failure to Respond to Disciplinary Charges

On September 15, 1999, the Commission on Lawyer Conduct ("Commission") received a complaint about Respondent from Judge Hall, Chief Magistrate for Spartanburg County. The Commission wrote Respondent on September 21 and requested a response within fifteen days. Respondent did not reply. The Commission wrote Respondent again on October 22, 1999, requesting a response to Judge Hall's complaint and informing Respondent that failure to reply to an inquiry was, in itself, grounds for discipline. Again, Respondent failed to reply.

The matter was referred to the Attorney General's Office. On January 17, 2000, a Notice of Full Investigation was served upon Respondent by certified mail. Respondent failed to respond within thirty days. A Subpoena Duces Tecum was also sent on January 17, requiring Respondent to present bank statements from his trust account at Carolina Southern Bank for the period January 1, 1999, through January 1, 2000. Respondent did provide some statements, but failed to provide the statements for the months of February, May, and October 1999. A follow-up Subpoena Duces Tecum was faxed to Respondent on July 13, 2000, requesting the missing statements as well as bank statements from Respondent's management account at the same bank for the same period. Respondent failed to send the missing statements from his trust account, and, while he did send the statements from his management account, Respondent did not send the statement from that account for May 1999.²

II. Bank Account Irregularities

A review of Respondent's trust account statements supplied to the Commission, which did not include February, May, October, November, and December 1999³ showed the following: two (2) NSF service charges, six (6) service charges, one (1) daily overdraft charge, and three (3) negative balances. The check which lead to the complaint from Judge Hall (to be discussed in Section III) came from another account, Respondent's management account. On a review of that account (for which the May 1999 statement was missing) showed the following: twenty-three (23) NSF service charges, eight (8) service charges, eight (8) daily overdraft charges, and twenty-four (24) negative balances.

III. The Judge Hall Complaint

A client of Respondent, Lawrence Ware ("Ware"), was arrested by the police in Wellford, South Carolina on two charges. A court date was set for February 16, 1999, in front of the Wellford Municipal Court. Respondent represented Ware regarding these charges. Respondent did not request a postponement of the hearing, nor did he request a jury trial. Neither Ware nor Respondent appeared on February 16, and Ware was tried in his absence. A Bench Warrant was issued for Ware, showing fines for the two tickets in the amount of $759.00 and $548.00 for a total of $1,307.00. Ware was picked up on the Bench Warrant, and since the Town of Wellford does not have a detention facility, Ware was confined at the Spartanburg County Jail.

After receiving notice of the situation, Respondent wrote a check for Ware's fines. The check was written on the Tullis management account at Carolina Southern Bank, in the amount of $1,307.00 payable to the Spartanburg Magistrate Court. The Magistrate Court deposited the check into its account and then wrote a check to the Town of Wellford. Respondent's check was returned for non-sufficient funds on June 29, 1999. Thereafter, there were repeated attempts by the Magistrate Court staff to contact Respondent in an effort to get him to make the check good, but without success. On one occasion, Respondent or a member of his staff brought to the Magistrate Court a cashier's check, but it was for the wrong amount and the court's accounting system could not accept it. Furthermore, the Magistrate Court Clerk and Judge Hall himself made repeated attempts, without success, to contact Respondent via telephone.

On September 13, 1999, Judge Hall wrote a letter of complaint to the Commission on Lawyer Conduct since there had been no payment by Respondent. Thereafter, in October 1999, Judge Hall made two more attempts to contact Respondent by telephone. In November of 1999, Judge Hall personally traveled to Respondent's office. However, Respondent was away attending a seminar. On December 10, 1999, Respondent finally paid the Spartanburg Magistrate Court $1,307.00.

A hearing before a Subpanel of the Commission was conducted on October 25, 2000. Respondent was present and represented himself. Respondent did admit the factual allegations, but presented "evidence" in mitigation. The Subpanel's Report, adopted by the Full Panel, found Respondent had committed misconduct. Specifically, the Panel found Respondent violated the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1), violating a Rule of Professional Conduct; Rule 7(a)(3), knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand from a disciplinary authority; Rule 7(a)(5), engaging in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the legal profession into disrepute or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law; and Rule 7(a)(6), violation of the oath of office taken upon admission to the practice of law in this state. Furthermore, the Panel found violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR. The following violations regarding the Judge Hall Matter were cited by the Panel: Rule 1.2, scope of representation; Rule 1.3, failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; Rule 1.4(a), failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; Rule 3.3, candor towards a tribunal; and Rule 4.1, truthfulness in statements to others. With regards to the bank account irregularities, the Panel found a violation of Rule 1.15, safekeeping of property. Regarding the failure to respond to an inquiry, the Panel found a violation of Rule 8.1(b), knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority. Regarding all matters, the Panel found violations of Rule 8.4; specifically subsections (a), violating a Rule of Professional Conduct, (d), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and (e), engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

After finding all of these violations, however, the Panel made the following statements regarding mitigating circumstances:

Notwithstanding the Respondent's default in responding to the formal charges, he did, in fact, appear at the Hearing and did offer to the panel, by way of mitigation, a history of unfortunate events which both preceded and overlapped the conduct complained of, which events included death within the Respondent's immediate family, severe domestic difficulties, involving and incurring by the Respondent of child custodial demands and responsibilities with which he was not confronted during happier times in the marriage which conflicted with his professional responsibilities. He also acknowledged that, during this time, his wife made unauthorized transaction in his trust account, without his knowledge, thereby resulting in a negative balance in his account.⁴

It is also clear to the panel from what the Respondent implied, if not outright stated, that he, as a result of these stressful events suffered from depression which left him in the state of paralysis with a limited

...