Treacy, Matter of
| Decision Date | 01 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21682,21682 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Patrick E. TREACY, Respondent. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard B. Kale, Jr., Columbia, for complainant.
Patrick E. Treacy, pro se.
This matter, involving Respondent, Patrick E. Treacy, a practicing attorney in South Carolina, is before the Court for final action because a Hearing Panel and the Executive Committee of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found him guilty of misconduct as defined in the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure for attorneys. Both the Panel and the Board recommended that the Respondent be publicly reprimanded.
The Complaint filed against the Respondent alleges, in essence, that a Mr. Jackle paid him $500 to pursue the matter of recovering an amount in dispute held by the South Carolina Savings and Loan Association. It alleges that he "... failed to undertake any actions to recover the disputed sum and, therefore, neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the rule on Disciplinary Procedure."
Respondent represented Mr. Jackle incident to a foreclosure proceeding which was avoided when Jackle found an advantageous purchaser for mortgagor's premises.
In effecting the sale and transfer and in paying off the mortgage loan, certain items of costs came in dispute. It was agreed that an amount be held in escrow such that the sale could be consummated and the escrow amount litigated. For the purpose of pursuing and settling the dispute, it is admitted that Respondent accepted from Mr. Jackle a $500 attorney fee.
The closing was on August 27, 1976. Mr. Jackle thereafter moved to the State of Florida. The Respondent having refused to communicate with his client concerning the status of the suit, Mr. Jackle procured an attorney in Miami, Florida to pursue the matter, requesting an accounting of the money held in escrow, as well as the status of the claim. Respondent did not reply and on July 18, 1980, Mr. Jackle filed a Complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. At the hearing before the Panel, Respondent testified that he did three things: (1) phoned the Federal Trade Commission, (2) contacted the Consumer Affairs Office, and (3) phoned the law firm of Hammer and Hammer, which was apparently handling a class action suit against several savings and loan associations. The result of the class action would not settle the escrow dispute.
Assuming without so deciding, that this uncorroborated testimony is true, it cannot be seriously argued that the Respondent did anything meaningful which might be calculated to assist his client. He did attempt to schedule a hearing on October 20, 1976, before Judge Cobb, who had no jurisdiction in the matter, but Respondent never appeared at the appointed time.
Respondent admits that he has not returned all or any part of the fee which he took from Mr. Jackle. Rule 6-101(A)(3) states that "a lawyer shall not: ... Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him." We are in full agreement with both the Panel and the Executive Committee that the Respondent has completely failed to perform his duty to his client and by doing so is guilty of misconduct, warranting the sanction of this Court.
When the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline attempted to pursue this matter with the Respondent (as a result of Mr. Jackle's complaint) he ignored the Commission. The Panel report contains the following:
Additionally, it appears that the Respondent neglected numerous attempts by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline to cooperate in the investigation of this complaint. By letter dated July 28, 1980, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners notified the Respondent by mail of the Complaint brought against him and requested a response to be filed within ten (10) days to the local investigating member of the Board. On August 14, 1980, the investigating Board member wrote to the Respondent requesting a response to be filed by August 19, 1980, inasmuch as no response had been received. Again on August 24, 1980 the investigating Board member requested the Respondent to reply to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE RICE, 24917.
...S.C. 461, 427 S.E.2d 644 (1993) (members of the Bar are required to cooperate fully with disciplinary authorities); Matter of Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982) (failure to comply with investigation is itself a disciplinable offense); Rule 7(a)(3), The appropriate sanction for negl......
-
Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Horn
...even though attorney was found not to have committed the breach of conduct alleged in the underlying complaint); Matter of Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240, 241-42 (1982) (failure to respond to complaint and cooperate with investigation is misconduct and reason for sanction); In re Clar......
-
In re Prendergast
...the ODC in regard to the February 15, 2007 letter. On April 17, 2007, the ODC sent Respondent a letter pursuant to In the Matter of Treacy, 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982),4 again requesting a response. Respondent failed to respond or otherwise communicate with the ODC following the mai......
-
In re Warren
...in the settlement agreement. Respondent failed to make payments, and the confessions of judgment were filed in July 2013.2 277 S.C. 514, 290 S.E.2d 240 (1982).3 On the eve of oral argument, Respondent requested permission to surrender his law license upon the condition that he be permitted ......