Legal Opinion

In the Matter of Nathan Jardine

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided October 29, 2014No. Appellate Case 2014-001621; 27459PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent is licensed to practice law in Utah and California; 1 he is not licensed to practice law in South Carolina. On November 1, 2013, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed Formal Charges against respondent alleging he offered to provide legal services in South Carolina and directly solicited a resident of this state in violation of Rule 7, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, and Rule 418, SCACR. Respondent did not answer the Formal Charges, was found to be in default, and was therefore deemed to have admitted the factual allegations made in this charges. 2 See Rule…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In Re HallSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  2. Utah State Bar v. JardineUtah Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Mathis v. WatsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
  4. In Re JacobsenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  5. In re Van SonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2013

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In the Matter of Mark Andrew BruntySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2015
  2. In the Matter of Daniel A. BeckSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2015
  3. In the Matter of Robert BreckenridgeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2016
  4. In the Matter of Robert BreckenridgeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API