Legal Opinion · Dissent

In the Matter of Robert Breckenridge

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 20, 2016No. Appellate Case 2015-000181; 27625Published

1DissentChief Justice Pleicones

I respectfully dissent. Through an error on the part of a title insurance company, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel became aware of a single closing wherein Respondent failed to explain the nature of a “net funding transaction” — to clients who admittedly sought and obtained a home mortgage refinance from their mortgage company, and who suffered no prejudice. In my opinion, these facts do not warrant a public reprimand. Moreover, nothing in this single instance justifies the modification of our holding in Richardson13 — declining to “specify the form [that attorney supervision of loan…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Doe Law Firm v. RichardsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  2. Frasier v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API