South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog

On Monday last week the S.C. Supreme Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for 2 years for solicitation of prostitution and for impersonating a law enforcement officer; the lawyer worked for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel at the time - the "prosecutors," if you will, who enforce the disciplinary rules of the S.C. Bar:

On or about November 2, 2006, respondent was arrested in Richland County for the crime of soliciting prostitution in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-90 and § 16-15-100 (2003). The warrant alleged respondent met with an undercover South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agent posing as a prostitute and solicited the undercover agent for sex.

As a result of the same occurrences, respondent was also arrested on November 2, 2006 in Richland County for impersonating a law enforcement agent in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-720 (2003). The warrant alleged that, during the encounter with the undercover SLED agent who was posing as a prostitute, respondent verbally identified himself as a SLED agent by presenting a badge and stating he was a SLED agent. At the time of the arrests, respondent was employed on a full-time basis as an attorney with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the badge he presented to the undercover SLED agent was his Disciplinary Counsel badge.

Respondent admits that, during his conversation with the undercover SLED agent, he made statements that she reasonably understood to be soliciting prostitution, even though he did not offer money but, instead, used words that reasonably represented an arrangement had been made by respondent’s friend in the escort service business which would allow for sexual activity without payment. Respondent also acknowledges that, during the encounter with the undercover SLED agent, he stated he had overheard information regarding investigations into prostitution activity while he was at SLED and stated that he might be able to provide information regarding future prostitution investigations. Respondent admits that the statements concerning his ability to inform about future prostitution investigations were false; the Special Prosecutor has no evidence to establish otherwise. Respondent further admits that, during the exchange with the undercover SLED agent, he identified himself as a “SLED agent” and, upon her inquiry as to what “SLED” meant, he responded “State Law Enforcement Division” or words to that effect.

The responsibility for prosecuting respondent for these crimes was transferred to the Solicitor’s Office of the Sixth Judicial Circuit. Respondent was allowed to enter the Pre-Trial Intervention Program and he completed that program on or about September 8, 2008.

Beyond the irony of disciplinary counsel being suspended from the practice of law for this type of conduct, this case illustrates our state's regulation of lawyers. The public often perceives lawyers as sleazy and without ethics, as they are often portrayed in television and films, but the fact is that the conduct of lawyers is highly regulated by the state bar. This attorney was allowed to enter the PTI program on his criminal charges, which was probably appropriate, and after completing community service the case will be dismissed and his record will be expunged. He has lost his livelihood, however, and if and when he returns to the practice of law, this incident will follow him for the rest of his career.

In two other disciplinary opinions this month, the S.C. Supreme imposed a 9 months suspension on an attorney for possession of cocaine, as well as requiring ongoing treatment and monitoring once he is reinstated, and a municipal court judge was issued a public reprimand for failure to complete continuing legal education requirements.