Sipes, Matter of
| Decision Date | 04 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 22980,22980 |
| Citation | 377 S.E.2d 574,297 S.C. 531 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In The Matter of Marlene T. SIPES, Respondent. . Heard |
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Attys. Gen. James G. Bogle, Jr. and J. Emory Smith, Jr., Columbia, for complainant.
Marlene T. Sipes, Columbia, pro se.
This is a disciplinary proceeding charging Marlene T. Sipes (Respondent) with conduct violating the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: 1) DR1-102(A)(3)--proscribing illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and; 2) DR1-102(A)(4)--proscribing conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Respondent Sipes is also charged with acts of misconduct as defined by the following provisions of the South Carolina Court Rules on Disciplinary Procedure: 1) Rule 5(B)--defining misconduct as an act in violation of the Oath of Office and Code of Professional Responsibility, whether or not such occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship and; 2) Rule 5(D), which further defines misconduct as that which tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute or demonstrates unfitness to practice law.
The Hearing Panel concluded that Respondent had engaged in conduct violating the above-cited code provisions and Rules of Court and recommended a public reprimand. The Executive Committee adopted the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law and independently recommended that Respondent be publicly reprimanded. We agree with the concurrent findings by the Hearing Panel and Executive Committee, but disagree with the recommendation. Therefore, we impose a suspension from the practice of law in this State for a period of one year.
The present charges grew out of Respondent's misappropriation of funds entrusted to her while serving as "Cookie Chairperson" of her daughter's Girl Scout Troop during their 1986 cookie sale. As chairperson, Respondent was to collect checks and cash from the cookie sales and deposit them into a bank account designated by the Girl Scout Council (Council). Respondent was provided with special deposit slips to use. Respondent deposited the checks, but instead of depositing the cash proceeds, she spent the money for her own personal and family expenses. Respondent contends that she used the money with the intention of writing one check from her personal account to pay the Council.
On March 18, 1986, when the sale money was due, Respondent deposited three personal checks in the Council account in the amounts of $183.75, $500.50 and $1,135.30. These checks were written on her husband's credit union account and were signed "William A. Sipes". Each of these checks was returned and marked "account closed." The account had shown a negative balance since February 14, 1986. In her answer to the complaint, Respondent admitted that she had no authorization from the credit union to sign these checks, but said she did have her husband's permission to sign his name. At the Panel hearing, however, Respondent admitted that she did not have her husband's consent to sign his name to the checks. At no time did Respondent have authority to write the checks.
On March 31, Council gave notice to Respondent about the check problem. Shortly thereafter Respondent paid $183.75 to the Council. Attached to the money order for the $183.75 was a note in which she told the Council there had been a "mix-up in deposits" and promised complete payment "within one week." The promised payment was never made. On May 7, 1986, Respondent left another note with the Council promising the "balance ... by Friday at the latest." On Friday, May 12, 1986, Respondent paid only $100.00 toward the $1635.80 debt and submitted a payment schedule. This payment schedule was submitted in the form of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ruffin, 25956.
...pay bar license fees, failing to comply with CLE requirements, and failing to appear as ordered by the Court). See also In re Sipes, 297 S.C. 531, 377 S.E.2d 574 (1989) (although practice of law not involved, Court ordered one-year suspension for attorney's misappropriation of Girl Scout co......
-
MATTER OF BELL, 24817.
...Walker, 305 S.C. 482, 409 S.E.2d 412 (1991) (attorney indefinitely suspended for forging circuit judge's signature); In re Marlene Sipes, 297 S.C. 531, 377 S.E.2d 574 (1989) (attorney suspended for one year where she signed her husband's name to checks, without his permission, and used Girl......
-
State v. Harrison
...An element of the crime is the "intent to defraud." Any crime in which fraud is an ingredient is a crime of moral turpitude. In re Sipes, 377 S.E.2d 574 (S.C.1989); State v. Horton, 271 S.C. 413, 414, 248 S.E.2d 263 (1970). A conviction for uttering a "fraudulent check" by its very terms re......
-
Parker, Matter of, 23916
...the accounting. The crime respondent pled guilty to is a crime of moral turpitude since it involves an element of fraud. In re Sipes, 297 S.C. 531, 377 S.E.2d 574 (1989) (an act in which fraud is an ingredient involves moral In the Matter of Derrick, 301 S.C. 367, 392 S.E.2d 180 (1990) (bre......
-
South Carolina State Register Vol. 46, Issue 11, November 25, 2022
...368, 392 S.E.2d 180, 180 (1990) (classifying “breach of trust with fraudulent intent” as “a crime of moral turpitude” (citing In re Sipes, 297 S.C. 531, 377 S.E.2d 574 (1989))); Op. Att’y Gen., 1988 WL 485245, at *1 (S.C.A.G. Mar. 11, 1988) (“Because the substantive offense would involve mo......