Kennedy, In re, 19082
| Decision Date | 17 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19082,19082 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Albert A. KENNEDY, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen Irvin D. Parker, Columbia, for complainant.
Albert A. Kennedy, Columbia, for respondent.
The respondent, Albert A. Kennedy, was admitted to the Bar of South Carolina in the year 1950. He was duly charged with two counts of professional misconduct. After a hearing, the panel found him guilty on both counts and recommended his indefinite suspension. Respondent appeared before the full Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, but challenged only the disciplinary action recommended by the panel. A majority of the Board adopted the fact findings of the panel, but recommended a public reprimand, rather than indefinite suspension.
The respondent did not appear before this court in response to a rule to show cause, or file any return thereto. Under all of these circumstances, the only question before this court is just what disciplinary action is appropriate. Both the panel and a majority of the Board found respondent guilty of misconduct or practices tending to pollute the administration of justice and to bring the courts and the legal profession into disrepute, in that in two separate matters he accepted fees in the amounts of $100 and $250, respectively, but thereafter failed and refused to perform the services for which he had been paid, in accordance with the terms of his employment.
Although respondent has been a member of the Bar since 1950, he has not maintained a law office in the ordinary sense nor does he maintain files or follow standard office practice and procedures, but instead attempts to perform legal services on a part time basis using his dining room and his bedroom for offices. His failure to perform the services for which he was paid was due, at least in part, to misplacing files and papers. According to his testimony, he earns about $1,800 per annum as an attorney and has no other employment. He is a married man with a working wife. The two counts of misconduct on his part arose in a relatively short period of time and, as pointed out by the panel, such would appear to be an unusually high percentage of negligent failure when compared to his overall volume of professional business.
Although it has been held that the judgment pronounced in disciplinary proceedings should be commensurate with the misconduct proven, Cate v. Rivers, 246 S.C. 35, 142 S.E.2d 369, the primary purpose of disbarment or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Moses
...324 S.C. 105, 108, 477 S.E.2d 98, 99 (1996) (citing In re Fullwood, 322 S.C. 1, 6, 471 S.E.2d 151, 154 (1996) ; In re Kennedy, 254 S.C. 463, 465, 176 S.E.2d 125, 126 (1970) ). In determining a sanction, this Court considers the punishments elicited by similar misconduct in the past. See, e.......
-
Jennings, Matter of
...the administration of justice." In the Matter of Baldwin, 278 S.C. 292, 294 S.E.2d 790, 791 (1982) (quoting In the Matter of Kennedy, 254 S.C. 463, 176 S.E.2d 125, 126 (1970)). It is our opinion that respondent's misconduct warrants disbarment. It is therefore ordered that respondent shall ......
-
In re Fleming
... ... thus to protect the public and those charged with the ... administration of justice." In re Kennedy , 254 ... S.C. 463, 465, 176 S.E.2d 125, 126 (1970). Our decision today ... derives from our constitutional authority and duty to protect ... ...
-
Hodge, Matter of, 21679
...matter entrusted to him and his unprofessional manner and lackadaisical attitude toward the practice of law, In the Matter of Kennedy, 254 S.C. 463, 176 S.E.2d 125 at 126 (1970), we find no clear showing of negligence in this incident sufficient to compel any disciplinary Next Hodge contend......