This case concerns a licensed attorney who was suspended from the practice of law for six months beginning August 22, 2011. The attorney later submitted an affidavit seeking reinstatement under Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted the reinstatement request and restored the attorney to full practice in the state.
This case concerns the reinstatement of an attorney following a period of suspension under South Carolina's lawyer disciplinary rules. The respondent had been suspended for ninety days, with the suspension made retroactive to August 8, 2011. After completing the suspension, he filed an affidavit requesting reinstatement pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the reinstatement, allowing the attorney to resume the practice of law in the state.
This case involves a lawyer, referred to as the respondent, who was arrested and charged with forgery involving $10,000 or more and breach of trust involving between $2,000 and $10,000. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition requesting interim suspension of the respondent's law license under Rule 17(a) of the South Carolina Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the petition, ordering immediate suspension of the respondent's license to practice law until further order and enjoining access to any trust, escrow, operating, or other law office accounts. The decision follows directly from the criminal charges and the applicable disciplinary rules without additional findings or hearings described in the order. Chief Justice Toal did not participate in the ruling.
This case involves Century BMW's motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit under a contract containing a class action waiver, which the trial court and South Carolina Supreme Court initially denied based on state law under the Dealers Act and public policy. Following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion on federal preemption under the FAA, the South Carolina Supreme Court examined whether the preemption argument had been preserved. The court held that the issue was not preserved because it was never raised to or ruled upon by the trial court or in the initial state proceedings, despite references to general arbitration policies, and therefore reinstated its original opinion.
The case In Re Moore concerns a lawyer who was suspended from practicing law for six months beginning in March 2011. The respondent submitted an affidavit seeking reinstatement under Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court reviewed the request and granted reinstatement, ordering that the lawyer be restored to the practice of law in South Carolina. The decision was issued by Chief Justice Jean H. Toal based on compliance with the procedural requirements for reinstatement.
This case involves disciplinary proceedings against a South Carolina attorney arrested and charged with multiple counts of tax evasion, failure to pay taxes or file returns, and failure to collect and remit employee income taxes under state law for tax years 2005 through 2009. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel petitioned the court for interim suspension of the attorney's license and appointment of another lawyer to protect client interests under the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted the petition, ordering immediate suspension of the respondent's law license until further order and appointing Hal LaVaughn Beverly, Jr. to assume control of client files, trust accounts, and related matters.
criminal lawtaxesprocedure
Jean H. Toal
Judge, Supreme Court of South Carolina · Born 1943
.jpg?width=900)