In re Collie

Citations: 406 S.C. 181; 749 S.E.2d 522; 2013 WL 5743567; 2013 S.C. LEXIS 281Docket: Appellate Case No. 2012-213164

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina; October 17, 2013; South Carolina; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On October 17, 2011, the Court mandated that all South Carolina lawyers must log in to the Attorney Information System (AIS) by November 18, 2011, to verify and update their contact information, including a mailing address, email, and phone number. This requirement is part of an amendment to Rule 410, SCACR, which establishes a continuous duty for attorneys to keep their AIS information current and accurate. Specifically, Rule 410(e) states that the mailing and email addresses in AIS will be used for official notifications to bar members.

During oral arguments in the case of Cynthia Holmes v. Haynesworth Sinclair Boyd on October 16, 2012, it was revealed that the respondent was not properly registered with AIS. The Chief Justice directed the respondent and her counsel to update AIS with a valid email address. On October 18, 2012, the respondent contacted the AIS Help Center and was informed of her obligation to provide an email address. Following this, her counsel communicated to the Chief Justice that steps were being taken to create an email account for compliance.

In connection with a disciplinary matter, the Court ordered the respondent on October 18, 2012, to add a valid email address to AIS and confirm her other contact details within five days. The respondent verified her AIS information and added an email address by October 22, 2012. However, a subsequent email from the Clerk’s Office on October 26, 2012, indicated that her provided email address resulted in an auto-response stating it was no longer active. The Court subsequently denied her Petition for Rehearing on October 31, 2012, instructing her to remove the auto-generated response and monitor her email account.

On November 5, 2012, the respondent replied that her office lacked Internet access and cited previous communications with AIS staff regarding her status. She later filed a Second Petition for Rehearing, denied on January 11, 2013, followed by another motion that was also denied on February 4, 2013. Between February 25, 2013, and April 26, 2013, the respondent filed three additional motions.

On May 2, 2013, the Court denied motions filed by the respondent, noting that the disciplinary charges allege the respondent submitted multiple frivolous actions. The Court warned that continued frivolous filings could lead to restrictions on future submissions. On May 22, 2013, the respondent filed a Petition for Rehearing and two additional motions, which were denied on June 19, 2013. The Court indicated that the respondent's eighth filing since October 2012 constituted an abuse of legal process and prohibited any further filings until the Commission reviewed the matter. Between July 3 and July 18, 2013, the respondent attempted to submit three additional motions, which the Clerk rejected based on the June 19 order.

On July 30, 2013, the Commission's Counsel informed the Court that the respondent had not provided a valid email address, hindering communication. The respondent claimed she had no operational email. The Clerk instructed the respondent to respond by August 12, 2013, regarding the validity of her listed email and her actions to monitor it. The automated reply from the respondent's email indicated that it was inactive. On August 8, 2013, the respondent sent a written response that reiterated her previous correspondence from November 5, 2012, and included a statement about her exemption from a specific rule due to not having clients for over thirty years. This response repeated information previously submitted, failing to address the Clerk's questions directly.

Respondent, who claims to be retired from the practice of law for over thirty years and lacks Internet access, is still classified as a regular member of the South Carolina Bar. According to Rule 410(g), SCACR, she is required to provide a valid email address. Even if eligible for retired status, compliance with this requirement is still mandatory. Respondent has repeatedly disregarded directives from the Court and the Clerk of Court regarding maintaining an operational email account. Additionally, despite a June 19, 2013 order prohibiting her from filing further motions until the underlying disciplinary matter is resolved, she has attempted to submit additional motions. Due to her ongoing noncompliance, the Court concludes she poses a substantial threat to public safety and the justice system. Consequently, under Rule 17(b) and (c), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, the Court has placed her on interim suspension, which remains in effect until further notice. The formal charges against her became public on October 10, 2012, after the deadline for her response expired. To qualify for retired status, a Bar member must be at least 65 years old or have a serious illness or total disability, as per Rule 410(h)(1)(G), SCACR.