Legal Opinion

In Re Newell

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 8, 2002No. 25441PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into -an agreement pursuant to Rule 21, Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR. In the agreement, respon dent admits misconduct and consents to a definite suspension of nine months. We accept the agreement. The following facts are set forth in the agreement.

Facts

In the first matter, the client retained respondent in 1991 to handle a lawsuit against a realtor and warranty company. Respondent failed to file the lawsuit within the statute of limitations, failed to inform…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lounds v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2008
  2. In Re ToneySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2012
  3. In re NewellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2019
  4. In the Matter of David F. StoddardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API