Legal Opinion

In re Van Son

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 5, 2013No. Appellate Case No. 2013-000064; No. 27262PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent, licensed in California1 but not in South Carolina, sent solicitation letters to at least two South Carolina residents. These letters violated a number of provisions of Rule 7, Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), Rule 407, SCACR. Respondent subsequently failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s (ODC) investigation. Respondent did not answer ODC’s formal charges, was found to be in default, and is therefore deemed to have admitted the factual allegations made in those charges. Rule 24(a), Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE), Rule 413, SCACR.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re HallSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  2. In Re LongSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
  3. In Re YarboroughSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In the Matter of Nathan JardineSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014
  2. In re BergerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014
  3. In re the Motion to Permit & Authorize MotylinskiSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2014
  4. Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Kevin E. McCloskeyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2016
  5. In re LundgrenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2017

2 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