In re Darlington County Magistrate Thomas
Docket: No. 26290
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina; March 12, 2007; South Carolina; State Supreme Court
Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have reached an Agreement for Discipline by Consent, admitting to misconduct and consenting to a public reprimand or a suspension not exceeding sixty days. The court accepts the agreement and imposes a sixty-day suspension. The facts indicate that respondent's son-in-law was involved in a Family Court hearing regarding child support for his child with the complainant. Respondent, believing that child support included daycare fees, sought verification of the child's enrollment in the college's daycare. After being informed that the college would not release this information, respondent suggested his daughter request a subpoena. Subsequently, he issued a subpoena requesting documents from the college, which was faxed with a cover sheet from the Hartsville Magistrate’s Office. However, the college did not comply, and an attorney from the college questioned respondent's authority. Respondent then instructed the attorney to disregard the subpoena. Acknowledging his misconduct, respondent admitted he improperly used his judicial position for personal benefit and misrepresented the authority of the subpoena to the college. He recognizes his actions constituted judicial misconduct and has cooperated fully with the ODC. Respondent has previous disciplinary issues, including a May 3, 2006 admonition for misusing funds from his magistrate account and a March 15, 2005 letter of caution for issuing a restraining order without proper procedure. Respondent has violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rule 501, SCACR, including: - Canon 1: Upholding the integrity of the judiciary. - Canon 1A: Participating in and maintaining high conduct standards. - Canon 2: Avoiding impropriety and its appearance. - Canon 2A: Respecting the law and promoting public confidence in judicial integrity. - Canon 2B: Not allowing familial relationships to affect judicial conduct or judgment and not using judicial prestige for private interests. - Canon 3B(2): Being faithful to the law and maintaining professional competence. The misconduct is acknowledged by the respondent as grounds for discipline under Rule 7(a)(1) and Rule 7(a)(9) of Rule 502, RJDE. The misconduct leads to a decision to suspend the respondent from judicial duties for sixty days. The Agreement for Discipline by Consent has been accepted, and the respondent has consented to the publication of his disciplinary history. The decision is concurred by several justices, with one justice not participating.