In the Matter of Nida

In this attorney disciplinary matter the respondent, Laurence Harmon Nida, was found to have violated S. C. Sup. Ct. R. 32, DR 9-102(B)(3) and (4). The Hearing Panel recommended a private reprimand. The Executive Committee unanimously adopted the Hearing Panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but recommended a public repri mand. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand.

The respondent represented Mr. and Mrs. James Hardin in matters relating to their business, “Leisure Creations,” which he incorporated in June 1984. At the…