 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF MOORE12/16/1997
In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent, Fred Henderson Moore, is charged with several acts of misconduct arising out of his representation of several of his clients. We find respondent committed misconduct and impose a definite suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This disciplinary matter concerns several complaints filed against respondent between March 1995 and May 1996. Respondent denied all allegations of misconduct. A full hearing on these matters was held on June 13, 1995, February 28, 1996, and July 24, 1996. Respondent was represented by counsel. On January 22, 1997, the Hearing Panel (Panel) issued its report finding misconduct and recommending a definite suspension for three months. The Panel determined that some of the allegations in the complaints did not constitute misconduct. The Interim Review Committee (Committee) of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
Both respondent and complainant filed exceptions and briefs with this Court. Respondent claims the Panel erred in finding any misconduct. The complainant claims the Panel erred in not finding respondent mishandled two appeals and in not finding respondent had engaged in a pattern and practice of neglecting legal matters entrusted to him and incompetently representing his clients.
DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS
Although this Court is not bound by the findings of the Panel and Committee, these findings are entitled to great weight, particularly when the inferences to be drawn from the testimony depend on the credibility of witnesses. Matter of Yarborough, Op. No. 24662 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Aug. 4, 1997) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 23 at 15). However, we may make our own findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. Further, a disciplinary violation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Id.
We agree with the Panel's findings; however, we also find respondent has engaged in a pattern and practice of neglecting legal matters entrusted to him and incompetently representing his clients to their detriment.
Clarendon County Case
In September 1993, respondent filed an action for a client in the Clarendon County Court of Common Pleas (Clarendon County case).
Counsel for the defendants in this matter served various discovery requests, including Interrogatories, Request for Production and Request for Admissions, upon respondent. Except for a request for an extension made on December 13, 1993, respondent failed to answer or reply to any of the discovery requests and failed to return telephone calls or reply to correspondence concerning the discovery requests. Because of this failure to reply, the Request for Admissions were deemed admitted. Rule 36, SCRCP. Subsequently, counsel for the defendants moved to compel responses to the discovery.
Counsel provided notice to respondent of these motions. Respondent claimed he had assigned the discovery portion of this case to an associate. However, respondent admitted he was principally responsible for the file.
On May 26, 1994, the Deputy Clerk of Court for Clarendon County prepared a non-jury roster and mailed it to all counsel who had cases on the roster. The roster recited it was for the term of non-jury court beginning the week of June 6, 1994, and the assigned judge would hear motions, appeals and non-jury cases on Friday, June 10, 1994, beginning at 9:30 a.m. There were two parts to the roster: a motions roster and a trial roster. This case appeared on both rosters.
According to the testimony of the Deputy Clerk of Court, on May 26, 1994, a copy of the roster was mailed to respondent at 41 Morris S
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|