In re Warren
Decision Date | 29 June 2016 |
Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2015–002378,Opinion No. 27643 |
Citation | 416 S.C. 613,787 S.E.2d 528 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | In the Matter of William Franklin Warren, III, Respondent. |
Disciplinary Counsel Lesley M. Coggiola and Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Barbara M. Seymour, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
William Franklin Warren, III, Respondent, pro se.
In this attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent William Franklin Warren, III, admits misconduct including, among other things, misappropriating over $171,392 held in various trusts for which he served as trustee, converting client funds for his personal use, failing to perform work for which he had been paid, failing to return unearned fees, failing to record deeds and other original documents, and failing to respond to inquiries by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC). ODC filed formal charges against Respondent, which resulted in a hearing before a panel of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (the Panel). The Panel recommended that Respondent be disbarred, to which Respondent took no exception. In light of the egregious nature of Respondent's misconduct, we disbar Respondent.
On December 18, 2013, Respondent was placed on interim suspension by Order of this Court. In re Warren , 406 S.C. 483, 752 S.E.2d 548 (2013). The current proceedings arise from four separate complaints. Respondent failed to answer the formal charges, and by failing to answer, Respondent thus admitted the allegations. Rule 24(a), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. The factual allegations in the formal charges are summarized below.
Respondent mismanaged and misappropriated $171,392 from three trust accounts for which he served as trustee, using the stolen funds to operate his law firm and to support a lifestyle that he could not otherwise afford.1 We note Respondent is the uncle and godfather of the beneficiaries of the trusts from which he stole money.
In three different matters, Respondent undertook representation and accepted over $40,000 in fees, but failed to perform the services promised or reimburse fees for work not completed. Following Respondent's interim suspension, the attorney appointed to protect Respondent's clients' interests reported being unable to find any operating account or trust account for Respondent's law practice and that there were no funds available to reimburse any monies.
Respondent collected over $20,000 in fees to perform estate planning and corporate work for a client; however, Respondent mishandled the estate plan and allowed the client's corporate registration to lapse for seven years, resulting in forfeiture of the client's corporate charter and the client incurring $1,700 in penalties and more than $13,000 in attorney's fees paid to different counsel to reinstate the corporate charter and correct the client's estate plan.
Respondent prepared a will for a client, and after the client's passing, $18,000 cash was found in the client's home and delivered to Respondent to hold in trust. Respondent converted those funds, and none of the funds remained in trust at the time of Respondent's interim suspension.
Following Respondent's interim suspension, a review of client files revealed Respondent's possession of numerous original documents (primarily deeds conveying real property into living trusts, some several years old) that had not been filed by Respondent, despite Respondent having been paid fees to do so.
Respondent failed to respond to several investigative inquiries by ODC, including follow-up letters pursuant to In re Treacy2 advising him to file a written response.
In light of the nature and extent of Respondent's misconduct, the Panel recommended Respondent be disbarred. The Panel further recommended Respondent be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $244,772.22 and the costs of these proceedings. Respondent took no exception to the Panel report.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, conclusions[,] and recommendations of the Commission [on Lawyer Conduct].” Rule 27(e)(2), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Scope, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. “This Court has never regarded financial misconduct lightly, particularly when such misconduct concerns expenditure of client funds or other improper use of trust funds.” In re Johnson , 385 S.C. 501, 504, 685 S.E.2d 610, 611 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). As we have recognized, “[t]he primary purpose of disbarment ... is the removal of an unfit person from the profession for the protection of the courts and the public, not punishment of the offending attorney.” In re Burr , 267 S.C. 419, 423, 228 S.E.2d 678, 680 (1976).
Respondent has admitted theft that has resulted in significant harm to his clients and failed to participate in the disciplinary investigation. At oral argument before this Court, Respondent requested that his “license be taken.”3 Because of the prevalent nature of Respondent's theft and wrongdoing, we find Respondent committed misconduct in the respects identified by the Panel. Thus, we find Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (competence); Rule 1.2(a) (consult with client); Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 (communication); Rule 1.5(a) ( ); Rule 1.5(b) ( ); Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property); Rule 8.1(b) ( ); Rule 8.4(a) (misconduct); Rule 8.4(b) (criminal act); Rule 8.4 (c) ( ); Rule 8.4(d) ( ); and Rule 8.4(e) ( ). We also find Respondent's misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline under the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) ( ); Rule 7(a)(3) ( ); Rule 7(a)(5) ( ); and Rule 7(a)(6) (violation of the Lawyer's Oath).
We concur with the Panel's recommendation of disbarment. See, e.g. , In re Jones , 413 S.C. 29, 774 S.E.2d 467 (2015) ( ); In re Lafaye , 399 S.C. 12, 731 S.E.2d 282 (2012) ( ); In re Crummey , 388 S.C. 286, 696 S.E.2d 589 (2010) ( ); In re Williams , 376 S.C. 640, 659 S.E.2d 100 (2008) ( ); In re Cunningham , 371 S.C. 503, 640 S.E.2d 461 (2007) ( ); In re Kennedy , 367 S.C. 355, 626 S.E.2d 341 (2006) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Van Sellner v. State, Appellate Case No. 2014–002472
-
In re Wern
...yet admittedly continued to violate the same rule. 412 S.C. 585, 588-89, 773 S.E.2d 576, 578 (2015). See also In re Warren , 416 S.C. 613, 614-15, 787 S.E.2d 528, 529 (2016) (disbarring an attorney who, among other things, stole money from a trust for which he served as trustee and accepted......