Legal Opinion

In Re Tullis

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided October 8, 2007No. 26383PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed formal charges against respondent, Rodman C. Tullís, alleging misconduct in eight different matters. Respondent failed to file an answer, and he was found to be in default. After a hearing, 1 the sub-panel and the full panel recommended that respondent be disbarred and be required to pay various costs.

The authority to discipline attorneys and the manner in which the discipline is given rests entirely with this Court. In re McFarland, 360 S.C. 101, 600 S.E.2d 537 (2004); In re Long, 346 S.C. 110, 551 S.E.2d 586…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re LongSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
  2. In Re McFarlandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2004
  3. In Re MurphSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
  4. Matter of ThorntonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  5. Matter of EdwardsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1994

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. In Re WhiteSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
  2. In Re JacobsenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  3. Tobias v. RiceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2008
  4. In Re BoneySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  5. In Re JohnsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API