Kirven, Matter of, 20327
| Decision Date | 10 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 20327,20327 |
| Citation | 267 S.C. 669,230 S.E.2d 899 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Rogers W. KIRVEN, Respondent. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. A. Camden Lewis, Columbia, for complainant.
Harold W. Jacobs, Columbia; and Saunders M. Bridges, Florence, for respondent.
Respondent was charged with professional misconduct in his relationship with several clients. After dismissing some of the charges, the Panel and Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended the imposition of a public reprimand.
Respondent represented a client in a Workmen's Compensation claim and procured a settlement of $14,500.00. Prior to final distribution of the proceeds, respondent commingled his client's funds with his own personal assets. Shortly thereafter respondent induced his client to make him an unsecured loan of $7,000.00. The attendant promissory note was placed in respondent's personal file and the client was given no evidence of the debt.
With respect to another client, respondent while within the attorney-client relationship loaned his client money and co-signed promissory notes for her. Most of these transactions were in cash and undocumented.
In each case, the clients with whom the respondent was bargaining were unable to intelligently negotiate their own financial affairs. Both clients were relatively uneducated, one being unable to read or write. It is blatantly apparent that in this manipulated posture, the clients were susceptible to gross overreaching.
This Court is not bound by the Board's recommendation. Burns v. Clayton, 237 S.C. 316, 117 S.E.2d 300 (1960). We are required after thorough review of the record to administer the sanction we deem appropriate.
We have heretofore emphasized that commingling of trust funds is in itself a serious offense. In re Benjamin Mixson, 258 S.C. 408, 189 S.E.2d 12 (1972). Here, the respondent has not only breached his fiduciary duty by improper financial dealing with his naive clients, but has also concocted highly suspect transactions within the attorney-client relationship for personal profit. Such misconduct warrants an imposition of indefinite suspension.
Accordingly, we order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in this State and that he within five (5) days surrender his certificate of admission to practice to the Clerk of this Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Chastain
...S.C. 316, 117 S.E.2d 300 (1960). We must administer the appropriate sanction after a thorough review of the record. Matter of Kirven, 267 S.C. 669, 230 S.E.2d 899 (1976). The parties have not cited and we have not found any similar case in South Carolina or elsewhere, an indication of the u......
-
IN RE RICE, 24917.
...S.E.2d 300 (1960). The Court must administer the sanction it deems appropriate after a thorough review of the record. Matter of Kirven, 267 S.C. 669, 230 S.E.2d 899 (1976). After examining the facts, we find Respondent's misconduct has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Responden......
-
IN RE BROOME
...this Court is required to conduct its own thorough review of the record and then render an appropriate sanction. Matter of Kirven, 267 S.C. 669, 670, 230 S.E.2d 899, 900 (1976) (emphasis added). Moreover, this Court "may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, conclusion......
-
In re Thompson
...sanction after a thorough review of the record. Matter of Holt, 317 S.C. 48, 451 S.E.2d 884 (1994); see also Matter of Kirven, 267 S.C. 669, 230 S.E.2d 899 (1976). While this Court may draw its own conclusions and make its own findings of fact in an attorney disciplinary matter, the unanimo......