Padgett, Matter of, 22615

Decision Date16 September 1986
Docket NumberNo. 22615,22615
Citation290 S.C. 209,349 S.E.2d 338
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesIn The Matter of Joel Price PADGETT, Respondent. . Heard

Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard B. Kale, Jr., and Staff Atty. Samuel L. Wilkins, Columbia, for complainant.

Joseph C. Coleman, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The Panel found that respondent failed to maintain adequate records in violation of DR 9-101(B)(3). The members unanimously recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. The Executive Committee unanimously adopted the Panel's finding and recommendation.

Respondent agreed to hold in trust certain funds given to him by a functionally illiterate, 80 year old man. Additionally, respondent agreed to hold this gentleman's Social Security checks in trust as he received them. Respondent was to pay the man's telephone and fuel bills and then disburse the remaining funds according to the man's directions. In return, respondent was to receive $25.00 every quarter. Respondent testified, however, that he took only one $25.00 payment during the seven and a half years in which he performed this service.

In April or May of 1984, one or more of the checks respondent had issued to pay this man's bills failed to clear the bank. The fuel oil supplier began demanding cash on delivery and the phone bill was several hundred dollars in arrears and past due. Respondent readily admitted that he did not maintain adequate records of the receipts and disbursements of this man's money. Due to respondent's inadequate records, it is impossible to determine exactly what happened to these funds. It is undisputed that the initial fund and the sum of all the Social Security checks totaled in excess of $20,000. When asked to account for this money, respondent could offer receipts for only a few hundred dollars.

This Court has made it abundantly clear that an attorney is charged with a special responsibility in maintaining and preserving the integrity of trust funds. See Matter of Amick, 288 S.C. 486, 343 S.E.2d 623 (1986); Matter of James, 289 S.C. 4, 344 S.E.2d 378 (1986); Matter of Jackson, 289 S.C. 35, 344 S.E.2d 607 (1986); Matter of Moore and Brown, 280 S.C. 178, 312 S.E.2d 1 (1984).

We are aware that the relationship between respondent and the man for whom he was holding money in trust was not the typical attorney-client relationship. Once respondent voluntarily assumed the obligation of handling...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • In re Houston
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 6, 2009
    ...an attorney is charged with a special responsibility in maintaining and preserving the integrity of trust funds." Matter of Padgett, 290 S.C. 209, 349 S.E.2d 338 (1986). Respondent's admitted failure to maintain adequate records is a serious matter. We note, however, that the misconduct is ......
  • Brooks, Matter of, 24504
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1996
    ...The authority to discipline attorneys and the manner by which the discipline is given rests entirely with this Court. In re Padgett, 290 S.C. 209, 349 S.E.2d 338 (1986). It is therefore ordered that respondent shall be suspended from the practice of law in this State for nine months. Furthe......
  • In re Miles
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1999
    ...an attorney is charged with a special responsibility in maintaining and preserving the integrity of trust funds." Matter of Padgett, 290 S.C. 209, 349 S.E.2d 338 (1986) (suspending attorney who failed to maintain adequate records in a single case). When disciplinary counsel presents clear a......
  • In re Diggs
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 26, 2001
    ...of law). The authority to determine the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct rests solely with this Court. In re Padgett, 290 S.C. 209, 349 S.E.2d 338 (1986). A sentence harsher than a public reprimand is warranted for submitting a false sworn document to a tribunal. Therefore, Digg......
  • 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