Legal Opinion
In the Matter of Green
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided April 6, 1987No. 22695PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
This is an attorney grievance matter. Respondent was charged with misconduct as a result of his institution and settlement of a class action lawsuit without notice to all class members. Specifically, respondent was charged with violating Disciplinary Rules 5-106(A), 1-102(A)(1) & (5), *5247-101(A)(3), and 6-101(A)(2). Respondent tendered a conditional admission and consent to private reprimand which was denied by the Court.
The facts are undisputed. In 1972, respondent represented Dr. Strickland, a homeowner in the Cherry Grove Subdivision seeking to enjoin the draining and filling of a.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burns v. ClaytonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1960
- Premium Investment Corp. v. GreenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
3Cited by5 opinions
- Spence v. WingateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
- Hotz Ex Rel. Shareholders of Minyard-Waidner, Inc. v. MinyardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
- In the Matter of GainesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
- In the Matter of GreenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
- Spence v. WingateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011