In the Matter of Robert Breckenridge
Supreme Court of South Carolina
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
- Doe Law Firm v. RichardsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
- Frasier v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002