Johnson, Matter of, No. 24751

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation329 S.C. 363,495 S.E.2d 777
PartiesIn the Matter of Oliver W. JOHNSON, III, Respondent.
Decision Date26 January 1998
Docket NumberNo. 24751

Page 777

495 S.E.2d 777
329 S.C. 363
In the Matter of Oliver W. JOHNSON, III, Respondent.
No. 24751.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted Dec. 9, 1997.
Decided Jan. 26, 1998.

Page 778

[329 S.C. 364] Oliver W. Johnson, III, Columbia, pro se.

Attorney General Charles Molony Condon and Senior Assistant Attorney General James G. Bogle, Jr., Columbia, for the Office of The Disciplinary Counsel.

PER CURIAM:

In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and disciplinary counsel have entered into an agreement under Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In the agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to a public reprimand. We accept the agreement and publicly reprimand respondent.

Robert A.M. Kennedy Matter

Andree S.M. Kennedy (mother) retained respondent to represent her son, Robert A.M. Kennedy (Kennedy). Respondent charged mother $15,000 to represent Kennedy in a court martial, a military separation hearing, and a criminal trial in [329 S.C. 365] Kershaw County. Kennedy was convicted on the Kershaw County charge, and mother paid respondent $3,000 to handle an appeal of the conviction.

Respondent filed the notice of appeal but later convinced mother that an attorney more experienced in criminal matters should handle Kennedy's appeal. Mother followed respondent's advice and signed an agreement to pay another attorney $10,000 to handle the appeal. Pursuant to the agreement, respondent would receive $2,500 of the fee, and the other attorney would receive $7,500. In addition, the contract provided that respondent was to assist the other attorney in the appeal. Respondent, however, failed to materially assist with the appeal and failed to maintain contact with appellate counsel and mother during the appeal.

Additionally, in his response to the complaint in this matter, respondent alleged that he spent over 30 hours on Kennedy's appeal and provided a detailed break-down of how these hours were spent. Respondent, however, failed to produce time sheets or other documentary proof of his hours spent on the appeal, and admitted that he merely estimated the hours provided in his response to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Respondent misled the Board to believe that he actually spent thirty hours on the appeal when in actuality, his response to the Board was an estimate.

Gloria Coleman Matter

In November of 1993, Gloria Coleman (Coleman) retained respondent to represent her in a divorce action. At the time,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • State v. LaCoste, No. 3383.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 4, 2001
    ...the greater of the two offenses includes all the elements of the lesser offense. McFadden, 342 S.C. at 632, 539 S.E.2d at 389; Carter, 329 S.C. at 363, 495 S.E.2d at 777; State v. Sprouse, 325 S.C. 275, 478 S.E.2d 871 (Ct.App.1996). Thus, if the lesser offense includes an element not includ......
  • State v. Wilkes, No. 3355.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 11, 2001
    ...what offenses he was "called upon to answer" as well as what plea he should enter on the charges. Carter, 329 S.C. at 362, 495 S.E.2d at 777. Again, we must Clearly, the caption of an indictment is not part of the grand jury's findings. Wilson v. State, 327 S.C. 45, 488 S.E.2d 322......
  • In re Atwater, No. 27117.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 24, 2012
    ...Rast, 360 S.C. 96, 99, 600 S.E.2d 534, 536 (2004); In re Starks, 344 S.C. 29, 30–31, 542 S.E.2d 726, 727 (2001); see also In re Johnson, 329 S.C. 363, 366, 495 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1998) (“Respondent has neglected legal matters entrusted to him and has engaged in conduct which brings the legal ......
  • In re Jason T., No. 3164.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 22, 2000
    ...sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer. Carter, 329 S.C. at 362-3, 495 S.E.2d at 777. This requirement that a defendant receive notice of the charges against him is rooted in due process. See State v. Butler, 277 S.C. 452, 456......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • State v. LaCoste, No. 3383.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 4, 2001
    ...the greater of the two offenses includes all the elements of the lesser offense. McFadden, 342 S.C. at 632, 539 S.E.2d at 389; Carter, 329 S.C. at 363, 495 S.E.2d at 777; State v. Sprouse, 325 S.C. 275, 478 S.E.2d 871 (Ct.App.1996). Thus, if the lesser offense includes an element not includ......
  • State v. Wilkes, No. 3355.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 11, 2001
    ...what offenses he was "called upon to answer" as well as what plea he should enter on the charges. Carter, 329 S.C. at 362, 495 S.E.2d at 777. Again, we must Clearly, the caption of an indictment is not part of the grand jury's findings. Wilson v. State, 327 S.C. 45, 488 S.E.2d 322......
  • In re Atwater, No. 27117.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 24, 2012
    ...Rast, 360 S.C. 96, 99, 600 S.E.2d 534, 536 (2004); In re Starks, 344 S.C. 29, 30–31, 542 S.E.2d 726, 727 (2001); see also In re Johnson, 329 S.C. 363, 366, 495 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1998) (“Respondent has neglected legal matters entrusted to him and has engaged in conduct which brings the legal ......
  • In re Jason T., No. 3164.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 22, 2000
    ...sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer. Carter, 329 S.C. at 362-3, 495 S.E.2d at 777. This requirement that a defendant receive notice of the charges against him is rooted in due process. See State v. Butler, 277 S.C. 452, 456......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT