Iseman, Matter of, 22625
| Decision Date | 07 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22625,22625 |
| Citation | 290 S.C. 391,350 S.E.2d 922 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Marvin Daniel ISEMAN. . Heard |
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, and Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard B. Kale, Jr., Columbia, complainant.
Edward M. Woodward and Edward M. Woodward, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
This grievance proceeding charges respondent with engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). The Panel recommended the complaint be dismissed. The Executive Committee disagreed with the Panel and recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. We find the appropriate sanction in this matter is a temporary suspension.
Respondent submitted a Compliance Report to the Commission on Continuing Lawyer Competence reporting 15.25 hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit for 1984, including 9.25 hours attended at a real estate seminar in New Orleans, Louisiana. Respondent admits that he was not registered for that seminar and that he did not attend the 9.25 hours as reported. He used a colleague's proof of registration to attend parts of the seminar and estimates his actual attendance to be between 3.75 and 5 hours. Respondent filed this false report while under investigation in another disciplinary matter that ultimately resulted in a public reprimand. In re Iseman, 287 S.C. 194, 336 S.E.2d 474 (1985) ().
The authority to determine the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct rests solely with this Court. In re Padgett, --- S.C. ---, 349 S.E.2d 338 (1986); Burns v. Clayton, 237 S.C. 316, 117 S.E.2d 300 (1960). Pursuant to Paragraph 7(A)(3) of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of ninety days commencing on the date of filing of this decision.
Respondent must comply with the notice requirements specified in Paragraph 30 of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure. He may seek reinstatement pursuant to Paragraphs 37 and 38 of that Rule after the ninety day suspension period has expired.
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION.
HARWELL, J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards, Matter of
...a lawyer who caused a false affidavit to be prepared and filed concerning criminal charges against him. See also In re Iseman, 290 S.C. 391, 350 S.E.2d 922 (1986)(imposing temporary suspension for attorney who knowingly submitted false CLE report). But see In re Pridgen, 288 S.C. 96, 341 S.......
-
In re Diggs
...of the misconduct. This Court has addressed the falsification of CLE compliance reports several times in the past. In In re Iseman, 290 S.C. 391, 350 S.E.2d 922 (1986), this Court issued a ninety-day suspension for misrepresentation in connection with reported attendance at a CLE seminar. I......
-
IN RE ISEMAN
...identity of funds and property of a client; thus violating DR 1-102(A)(4), which is the present-day Rule 8.4(d).); In the Matter of Iseman, 290 S.C. 391, 350 S.E.2d 922 (1986) (Respondent was suspended for 90 days because he misrepresented the amount of Continuing Legal Education credits he......
-
Rowland, Matter of, 22743
...continuing legal education credits very seriously. Matter of Altman, 287 S.C. 321, 338 S.E.2d 334 (1985). See also, Matter of Iseman, 290 S.C. 391, 350 S.E.2d 922 (1986). Respondent's disregard of this requirement may, in itself, warrant disciplinary action. Id. Here, however, respondent's ......