In the Matter of James Bryant, 25129
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 532 S.E.2d 286 |
| Parties | In the Matter of James Carroll Bryant, Respondent. OpinionShearouse Adv. Sh.E. 2d THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, In The Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 15 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | 25129 |
In the Matter of James Carroll Bryant, Respondent.
Opinion No. 25129
Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. S.E. 2d
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, In The Supreme Court
Submitted April 11, 2000
Filed May 15, 2000
DEFINITE SUSPENSION
James Carroll Bryant, of Montmorenci, pro se.
Henry B. Richardson, Jr., of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
PER CURIAM:
In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an agreement under Rule 21, Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE), Rule 413, SCACR. In the agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to a definite suspension of six months and one day.(FN1) We accept the agreement.
The facts in the agreement are as follows:
Matter 1
Respondent was retained by a couple for representation in a domestic matter concerning the custody of two minor children from the husband's prior marriage. The husband's former wife, who had custody of the children, resided in Georgia. The couple's purpose in retaining respondent was to change the custody of the two children to joint custody. Respondent accepted a fee of $420 from the couple in exchange for his legal services.
Respondent prepared a Summons and Complaint regarding the custody issues. Respondent mailed the Summons and Complaint to the husband's former wife in Georgia. After completion of the pleadings, the couple found that respondent became increasingly difficult to reach, until he eventually ceased to respond to their attempts to contact him. As a result of respondent's unavailability, the couple was unable to expeditiously pursue the litigation in accordance with their interests.
The couple subsequently sent a letter of complaint regarding respondent's actions to the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. In response, the Commission sent respondent a letter, dated September 17, 1998, requesting a response within fifteen days. Respondent did not reply.
The Commission sent respondent another letter, dated October 13, 1998, requesting a response to the couple's complaint. The letter also reminded respondent that a failure to cooperate with a disciplinary authority could, in and of itself, be grounds for discipline. Respondent did not reply in a timely fashion.
However, on June 24, 1999, respondent replied to the Commission, enclosing a letter he had sent to the couple. In the enclosed letter, respondent informed them that he had closed his office, had not completed his work for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 practice notes
-
State v. King, Appellate Case No. 2015-001278
...the same offense. Id . at 395, 532 S.E.2d at 284. This Court affirmed as modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. Id . at 399, 532 S.E.2d at 286.Citing Foust , this Court noted that "a specific intent is not required to commit [ABWIK]." Sutton, 340 S.C. at 396, 532 S.E.2d at 285. Prem......
-
State v. Hill, No. 25868.
...the Court of Appeals' ruling in Sutton, holding that attempted murder is not a recognized offense in South Carolina. 340 S.C. at 398, 532 S.E.2d at 286. The State argues that in affirming the Court of Appeals, we did not reiterate the Court of Appeals' analysis that such an offense "never e......
-
State v. King, Appellate Case No. 2012–213405.
...at 396–98, 532 S.E.2d at 285–86. Though the court “decline[d] to recognize a separate offense of attempted murder,” 340 S.C. at 398, 532 S.E.2d at 286, it stated, “Attempted murder would require the specific intent to kill,” and “specific intent means that the defendant consciously intended......
-
Dinkins v. United States, Cr. No. 3:11-2061-CMC
...has been informed will produce death, whether such drug in fact is poisonous or not), constitutes assault with intent to kill); Sutton, 532 S.E.2d at 286 (defining assault as placing another in apprehension of harm and noting "[t]hus, if a person shook his hickory over his head, indicating ......
4 cases
-
State v. King, Appellate Case No. 2015-001278
...the same offense. Id . at 395, 532 S.E.2d at 284. This Court affirmed as modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. Id . at 399, 532 S.E.2d at 286.Citing Foust , this Court noted that "a specific intent is not required to commit [ABWIK]." Sutton, 340 S.C. at 396, 532 S.E.2d at 285. Prem......
-
State v. Hill, No. 25868.
...the Court of Appeals' ruling in Sutton, holding that attempted murder is not a recognized offense in South Carolina. 340 S.C. at 398, 532 S.E.2d at 286. The State argues that in affirming the Court of Appeals, we did not reiterate the Court of Appeals' analysis that such an offense "never e......
-
State v. King, Appellate Case No. 2012–213405.
...at 396–98, 532 S.E.2d at 285–86. Though the court “decline[d] to recognize a separate offense of attempted murder,” 340 S.C. at 398, 532 S.E.2d at 286, it stated, “Attempted murder would require the specific intent to kill,” and “specific intent means that the defendant consciously intended......
-
Dinkins v. United States, Cr. No. 3:11-2061-CMC
...has been informed will produce death, whether such drug in fact is poisonous or not), constitutes assault with intent to kill); Sutton, 532 S.E.2d at 286 (defining assault as placing another in apprehension of harm and noting "[t]hus, if a person shook his hickory over his head, indicating ......