Iseman, Matter of, 22398
| Decision Date | 08 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22398,22398 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of M. Daniel ISEMAN. . Heard |
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard B. Kale, Jr., Columbia, for complainant.
George Hunter McMaster, Columbia, for respondent.
This grievance proceeding charges M. Daniel Iseman with failing to preserve the identity of funds and property of a client in violation of DR9-102 of the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The Panel recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The Executive Committee disagreed with the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law. It recommended that Respondent Iseman receive a public reprimand. We agree with the Executive Committee.
Respondent Iseman's law practice was primarily concentrated in the commercial real estate area. His primary role in his law firm was to attract clients and work out business transactions. The majority of the legal work generated from these transactions was handled by other members of his firm.
By virtue of an order of the South Carolina Supreme Court, the client trust accounts of the respondent were audited. As a result of this audit, the complaint was filed in this case. The respondent was charged with irregularities in connection with three separate accounts. The irregularities involved in two of these accounts, Heritage House, Inc. and Maritime Beach Club, constituted violations of the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Heritage House, Inc. was a corporation formed by Respondent Iseman to purchase an apartment complex in Columbia, South Carolina and convert it into condominiums. The stock of the corporation was owned by five individuals, including Respondent Iseman, who each owned twenty percent of the stock. Iseman's twenty percent of the stock became a law firm asset of which Iseman owned forty percent. The law firm of the respondent handled all legal work for Heritage House, Inc. In the course of that representation, certain Heritage House obligations were paid from the law firm trust account. On several occasions, the Respondent wrote trust account checks for Heritage House before receiving and depositing corresponding amounts from Heritage House. Iseman sometimes wrote trust account checks on behalf of Heritage House and then requested that the bank transfer funds from a Heritage House account into his law firm trust account to cover the trust account check he had already written.
The audit indicated that Iseman wrote a $5,000 check from his firm trust account to the Buskin Agency for a personal investment in a real estate deal. The check represented Iseman's portion of an investment with several other investors, all of which were made through Iseman's trust account. In addition, Iseman's firm represented all of the corporations or partnerships formed to make the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE ISEMAN
...Respondent's prior disciplinary history exhibits a tendency to engage in lawyer misconduct involving deceit. See In the Matter of Iseman, 287 S.C. 194, 336 S.E.2d 474 (1985) (Respondent was issued a public reprimand for failing to preserve the identity of funds and property of a client; thu......
-
Iseman, Matter of, 22625
...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) (misuse of client trust The authority to determine the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct rests solely with this ......