You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Holmes

Citations: 405 S.C. 174; 747 S.E.2d 492; 2013 WL 4107523; 2013 S.C. LEXIS 202Docket: Appellate Case No. 2013-001481; No. 27301

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina; August 14, 2013; South Carolina; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney who entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent under Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement due to misconduct related to drug possession. Following his December 2011 arrest for possession with intent to distribute heroin, the attorney admitted to long-term addiction issues and consented to a suspension ranging from nine months to three years, retroactive to his interim suspension date in January 2012. Despite a conditional dismissal of the criminal charge, the attorney acknowledged violations of professional conduct rules and accepted full responsibility for his actions. The suspension was formalized for nine months and includes conditions for reinstatement: engagement with Lawyers Helping Lawyers, mandatory addiction treatment, quarterly compliance reporting, and practice limitations to a law firm setting for one year post-reinstatement. Following this period, solo practice requires approval from the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. The attorney must also file an affidavit confirming compliance with relevant court rules shortly after the opinion date. The case underscores the intersection of criminal conduct and professional responsibility, highlighting rehabilitation efforts and stringent monitoring to safeguard public perception of the legal profession.

Legal Issues Addressed

Criminal Conduct and Professional Responsibility

Application: The respondent admitted to possession of heroin and long-term addiction issues, affecting his professional conduct.

Reasoning: The respondent was arrested on December 27, 2011, for possession with intent to distribute heroin, acknowledging possession of 1.4 grams and active drug use at that time.

Disciplinary Proceedings under Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement

Application: The respondent entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent acknowledging misconduct and consenting to a suspension.

Reasoning: An attorney disciplinary matter has concluded with the respondent entering into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent as per Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

Monitoring and Practice Limitations Post-Reinstatement

Application: The respondent's practice is limited to law firm employment for one year post-reinstatement, with potential solo practice contingent on CLC approval.

Reasoning: 5) Limit practice to employment with a law firm or organization for at least one year post-reinstatement, with the option to become a solo practitioner only with CLC approval afterward.

Rehabilitation and Conditions for Reinstatement

Application: The respondent must adhere to specific conditions post-suspension, including addiction treatment and compliance reporting.

Reasoning: Respondent is required to comply with several conditions following reinstatement: 1) Enter into a contract with Lawyers Helping Lawyers (LHL) effective immediately and renew it for three years upon reinstatement; 2) Undergo treatment for addiction for three years post-reinstatement; 3) Submit quarterly reports to the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (CLC) for three years, including an affidavit of compliance with the LHL contract, a statement from the LHL monitor regarding compliance, and a report from the treatment provider detailing diagnosis, treatment compliance, and prognosis.

Retroactive Suspension of Legal Practice

Application: The respondent's suspension was made retroactive to the date of his interim suspension following his arrest for drug-related charges.

Reasoning: The respondent admits to misconduct, consents to a suspension of nine months to three years, and requests the suspension be retroactive to January 25, 2012, when he was placed on interim suspension.