Rowland, Matter of, 22743
| Citation | 293 S.C. 17,358 S.E.2d 387 |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 22743,22743 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | In the Matter of Charles George ROWLAND, III, Respondent. . Heard |
T. Travis Medlock, Atty. Gen., and Richard B. Kale, Jr., Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, for complainant.
Walter B. Todd, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
This is an attorney disciplinary proceeding. Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law following administrative suspension by the Commission on Continuing Lawyer Competence for failure to comply with the requirements for continuing legal education. The hearing panel recommended a public reprimand, and the Executive Committee recommended suspension for ninety days. We conclude respondent shall be suspended from the practice of law for two years, retroactive to the date of his original suspension.
Each active member of the South Carolina Bar is required to complete twelve (12) hours of accredited continuing legal education per calendar year. Supreme Court Rule 53, Section 2A(2). A bar member who is subject to mandatory CLE requirements must file a report of compliance for the previous year by January 10th of each year. Id. Failure to comply or to report compliance will result in administrative suspension from the practice of law by the Commission.
Respondent completed the mandatory CLE requirements for 1984, but failed to file his report of compliance with the Commission. After contacting him by mail, the Commission suspended respondent from the practice of law. In accordance with the order of suspension, respondent surrendered his license to practice to the Supreme Court. After surrendering his license, respondent continued to practice law for approximately six months. At the end of that period, respondent voluntarily appeared at the Supreme Court and reported his unauthorized practice.
It is undisputed from the record that respondent was, fully aware of the implications of his conduct. He delayed, without cause, filing his report of compliance and, after his suspension, fully realized he was practicing law in contravention of the Supreme Court Rules.
This Court regards an attorney's obligation to obtain continuing legal education credits very seriously. Matter of Altman, 287 S.C. 321, 338 S.E.2d 334 (1985). See also, Matter of Iseman, 290 S.C. 391, 350 S.E.2d 922 (1986). Respondent's disregard of this requirement may, in itself, warrant disciplinary action. Id. Here, however, respondent's conduct was even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregory, Matter of, 23510
...However, the ultimate authority to discipline attorneys and the manner of discipline rests with this Court. in RE rowland, 293 S.C. 17, 358 S.E.2d 387 (1987). We have reviewed the record and accept the findings of the Panel and Executive Committee, as well as respondent's own admission, tha......
-
In re Diggs
...report signed under oath alleging attendance at seven CLE recertification hours without actual attendance). But see In re Rowland, 293 S.C. 17, 358 S.E.2d 387 (1987) (unauthorized practice of law after administrative suspension for failing to comply with CLE requirements warrants a two year......