Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

<img style="max-width: 100%;height: auto;max-width: 100%;height: auto" loading="lazy" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-4631" src="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/754/2019/10/Courthouse-columns-227x300.jpg" alt="" width="227" height="300">A ruling handed down last month by the South Carolina Supreme Court provides object lessons on several aspects of the lawyer discipline system and how to stay out of trouble.&nbsp; In its order and <a href="https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLfiles/SC/28006.pdf">opinion</a>, the court publicly reprimanded a lawyer who pursued a probate case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, engaging along the way in litigation tactics that the court found &ldquo;frivolous and abusive.&rdquo;
Frivolous will contest
According to the court&rsquo;s disciplinary opinion, the lawyer was licensed in California, but was admitted pro hac vice in the Palmetto State, where she pressed a decade-long series of challenges to her great-aunt&rsquo;s will.&nbsp; &nbsp;The lawyer&rsquo;s clients were herself and her own mother &mdash; the great-aunt&rsquo;s closest living relatives.&nbsp; The opposing parties were the caregivers to whom the great-aunt had bequeathed her estate.&nbsp; The state supreme court affirmed the rejection of the substantive claims in 2018.&nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inscco20180228783">422 S.C. 234</a> (2018).
The next year, without going into detail, the state supreme court affirmed more than $16,000 in sanctions against the lawyer under the state&rsquo;s civil Rule 11, in an <a href="https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/unpublishedopinions/HTMLfiles/SC/2018-MO-039.pdf">opinion</a> finding that she lacked standing to pursue the claims, that her argument in support of standing &ldquo;border[ed] on frivolity,&rdquo; and that she had &ldquo;engaged in abusive litigation tactics.&rdquo;
The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.&nbsp; 140 S. Ct. 59 (2019).&nbsp; But in the meantime, as required by the state&rsquo;s <a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t15c036.php">Frivolous Proceedings Sanctions Act</a>, the state supreme court had reported the Rule 11 sanction to the state&rsquo;s Commission on Lawyer Conduct, launching the disciplinary proceedings.
As reported in the court&rsquo;s disciplinary opinion, the hearing panel found that the lawyer had violated South Carolina&rsquo;s version of <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_1_meritorious_claims_contentions/">Model Rule 3.1</a> (barring frivolous proceedings).&nbsp; The court found an additional violation of&nbsp; the state&rsquo;s version of <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_4_misconduct/">Model Rule 8.4(a)</a> (making it misconduct to violate the Rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another).&nbsp; The panel had recommended that the lawyer receive a &ldquo;<a href="https://www.scbar.org/public/get-legal-help/common-legal-topics/filing-a-grievance-against-an-attorney/">Letter of Caution</a>,&rdquo; a form of confidential disposition available in South Carolina disciplinary proceedings.&nbsp; But the state supreme court opted instead to publicly reprimand the lawyer, and also ordered her to pay costs.
Take-aways on pro hac vice, objectivity and more
Even though the court&rsquo;s disciplinary opinion lacks detail about the underlying frivolous conduct that constituted the ethics rule violations it found, here are three things to chew on:
<ul>
<li>Losing your objectivity can lead to problems.&nbsp; &nbsp; When you represent yourself and/or your family members, it can be easy to lose your way.&nbsp; You may not be the most objective and best judge about the case, how far to go, and what methods are appropriate in pursuing the client&rsquo;s goal.&nbsp; From the scanty details given, we don&rsquo;t know enough to say whether this was an issue in this case, but the risk is real and the precept is sound.</li>
<li>&nbsp;You can be disciplined under another jurisdiction&rsquo;s ethics rules.&nbsp; This case is a good reminder that when you litigate away from your home jurisdiction, your pro hac vice admission likely requires you to comply with the away-state&rsquo;s ethics rules and to accept that state&rsquo;s disciplinary authority over you.&nbsp; Here, a California lawyer, admitted pro hac vice in South Carolina litigation, found herself in the cross-hairs of that state&rsquo;s disciplinary counsel.</li>
<li>A judicial finding of frivolous conduct can have disciplinary consequences.&nbsp;&nbsp;When there is a judicial finding of frivolous conduct in underlying litigation, as there was here, it becomes that much easier for a disciplinary authority to conclude that a lawyer has violated Rule 3.1, which is tellingly titled &ldquo;Meritorious Claims and Contentions.&rdquo;&nbsp; What is required, the rule comment advises, is that lawyers &ldquo;inform themselves about the facts of their clients&rsquo; cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients&rsquo; positions.&rdquo;</li>
</ul>
There&rsquo;s more to say here (e.g.,&nbsp; you can violate the ethics rules through the act of another, as was found here), but you get the point.&nbsp; Even a public reprimand is a painful consequence, and watching your P&rsquo;s and Q&rsquo;s can help avoid it.

core/freeform

Ethics

Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Business of Law

Will contest brings disciplinary woe to SC lawyer