Legal Opinion

Matter of Celsor

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 13, 1998No. 24780PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

This is an attorney disciplinary matter. 1 The hearing Panel found respondent violated Rule 1.1, of Rule 407, SCACR, by handling legal matters he was not competent to handle and failing to secure a power of attorney to sign a client’s name on legal documents; Rule 3.3, of Rule 407, SCACR, by making false statements to the circuit and probate courts and engaging in conduct which involves misrepresentation and is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and Rule 413, SCACR, ¶¶ 5A and E, by violating the oath of office and demonstrating a lack of professional competence. The full Panel…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Burns v. ClaytonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1960
  2. Glenn v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1970
  3. Matter of KirvenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  4. Matter of McGuinnSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1979
  5. In re PowellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hodge v. Unihealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLCCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2018
  2. Chewning v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001
  3. In re BroomeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
  4. People v. PetersSupreme Court of Colorado · 2003
  5. In re RiceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API