Pride, Matter of, 21462
Decision Date | 26 May 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 21462,21462 |
Citation | 276 S.C. 363,278 S.E.2d 774 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | In the Matter of Hemphill P. PRIDE, II, Respondent. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys. Gen. Richard B. Kale, Jr., and James W. Johnson, Jr., Columbia, for complainant.
David W. Robinson, II, Columbia, for respondent.
This matter is before the court for review as a result of the report of the Executive Committee of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The respondent Hemphill P. Pride, II, a practicing attorney in Columbia, has been found guilty of misconduct under the rules of this court. Both the Executive Committee and the Panel, which heard his case, have unanimously recommended disbarment.
The complaint, upon which the Panel based its recommendation, charged:
The penalty provided is a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than three years, or both.
Respondent was found guilty on ten counts involving a total of approximately $30,000, and involving monthly misappropriations from July 1976 to February 1977. At the time of the disciplinary hearing respondent was serving a three-year prison term in a federal institution.
The complainant's case against the respondent consisted of the introduction of four written documents:
(3) A certified copy of the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of the United States, and
(4) A certified copy of the order of the United States Supreme Court denying certiorari.
The respondent takes the position that the sanction recommended to the court is too severe, 1 that no moral turpitude is involved, and that the violation, though criminal in nature, is in the category of a technical violation of a governmental regulation. The Panel, which heard the case and recommended disbarment, unanimously concluded as follows:
The Executive Committee, which acted upon the Panel's recommendation, voted unanimously to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Panel and joined in the recommendation to this court of disbarment.
While this court may draw its own conclusions and make its own findings, Burns v. Clayton, 237 S.C. 316, 117 S.E.2d 300 (1960), the unanimous findings and conclusions of both the Panel and Executive Committee are entitled to much respect and consideration. Upon a hearing before us,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jennings, Matter of
...has the burden of showing the recommendation of the Panel and Executive Committee should not be followed by the Court. In re Pride, 276 S.C. 363, 278 S.E.2d 774 (1981). Here, credibility of the witnesses is crucial in determining whether respondent destroyed the bills. The Panel was in a mu......
-
In re Glover
...findings and conclusions of both the Panel and Executive Committee are entitled to much respect and consideration." In re Pride, 276 S.C. 363, 366, 278 S.E.2d 774 (1981). In mitigation, we consider, as the Panel did, that respondent has admitted all the allegations against her and has expre......
-
Acker, Matter of, 23657
...While the Panel's findings are entitled to great respect, they are advisory only and not binding upon this Court. See Matter of Pride, 276 S.C. 363, 278 S.E.2d 774 (1981); see also In re Bloom, 265 S.C. 86, 217 S.E.2d 143 (1975). The punishment adjudged in a disciplinary proceeding should b......
-
Belser, Matter of
...we noted four permissible sanctions: disbarment; indefinite suspension; public reprimand; and private reprimand. In the Matter of Pride, Smith's, 278 S.E.2d 774 (S.C.1981). We hold that the respondent has violated DR6-101(A)(2) and (3) by handling a legal matter without preparation adequate......