Legal Opinion

In Re Chastain

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 15, 2000No. 25123PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

In this attorney grievance matter, we must decide whether to sanction Randall M. Chastain (Respondent) following his conviction in a criminal case that involved a matter for which we had sanctioned Respondent in a prior disciplinary proceeding. We choose not to impose an additional sanction in this case.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Six years ago, this Court found that Respondent committed misconduct in nine cases by neglecting legal matters, failing to respond to clients’ telephone calls and letters, failing to return unused retainer fees, and failing to respond to inquiries by disciplinary…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Helvering v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Theard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  5. Office of the Disciplinary Counsel v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In Re the Care & Treatment of MatthewsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
  2. In Re GreeneSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  3. The Mississippi Bar v. ColemanMississippi Supreme Court · 2002
  4. In re WelchSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
  5. Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. George P. Stanton, IIIWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2014

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

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

Powered by the Exa API