In re James
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Per curiam
Respondent was temporarily suspended from the practice of law on July 11, 1985 due to his mismanagement of his clients’ money. Since respondent did not file an answer to the complaint, the allegations of misconduct are deemed admitted under § 13(C) of the Rule on Disciplinary Procedure. Pursuant to § 12(B) of the Rule, no Panel hearing was held since no issues of fact were raised by the pleadings. The Executive Committee voted unanimously to permanently disbar respondent. Subsequently, respondent pled guilty to two criminal charges arising from the same transactions involved in this…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In the Matter of HolmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
- In the Matter of JenretteSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
3Cited by2 opinions
- In the Matter of PadgettSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
- Matter of KenyonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997