Legal Opinion

In Re Murph

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 3, 2002No. 25479PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

In this attorney grievance matter, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed formal charges against respondent, alleging mis conduct in eighteen different matters. Respondent did not answer the formal charges nor did he appear at the hearing before the sub-panel. The sub-panel and, thereafter, a full panel, found respondent in default and recommended disbarment.

Failure to answer formal charges or to appear when specifically ordered by the hearing panel shall constitute an admission of the factual allegations in the complaint. Rule 24(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Because respondent failed to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In Re HallSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  2. In the Matter of SiflySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
  3. Matter of ThorntonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  4. Matter of EdwardsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1994
  5. Matter of WoffordSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re TullisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  2. In Re JacobsenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  3. In Re PrendergastSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  4. In Re BoneySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  5. In Re BagnellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011

4 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