THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
In the Matter of Daniel A. Beck, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2014-001912
Opinion No. 27529
Heard February 18, 2015 – Filed June 10, 2015
DISBARRED
Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Barbara
Seymour, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel, both of
Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
James K. Holmes, of The Steinberg Law Firm, LLP, of
Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Respondent self-reported misuse of his trust account. He and the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) stipulated the facts, and at the Panel
Hearing the sole issue was the appropriate sanction. The Panel found that
mitigating factors outweighed aggravating factors, and recommended Respondent
be suspended for three years, retroactive to the date he was indefinitely suspended,1
and that several other conditions be imposed.2 ODC has taken exception to the
three-year suspension recommendation, and contends that disbarment, retroactive
to September 2, 2011, is the appropriate sanction. We agree with ODC, and disbar
1
In re Beck, 394 S.C. 208, 715 S.E.2d 336 (2011).
2
Those conditions are that Respondent pay the costs of the proceeding ($1,450.07);
that within six months of reinstatement he attend both the Legal Ethics and
Procedure Program Ethics School and Trust Account School; and that for the two
years following reinstatement, he provide the Commission on Lawyer Conduct
with quarterly reconciliations of his Trust Account.
Respondent retroactive to September 2, 2011. Further, we impose the additional
conditions recommended by the Panel.
FACTS
1. Respondent operated a law firm as the principal shareholder
for twenty-four years, primarily handling plaintiff's personal
injury cases on a contingency basis. For a period of
approximately eleven years, Respondent used funds from
his trust account for purposes for which those funds were
not intended, including funding other clients' litigation, cash
advances to clients, office operating expenses, payroll, and
personal expenses.
2. Respondent instructed his nonlawyer staff with signatory
authority on his trust account to issue checks from that
account for purposes for which those funds were not
intended.
3. Respondent failed to properly reconcile his trust account or
otherwise maintain records required by Rule 417, SCACR.
As a result of inadequate accounting practices, Respondent
made numerous mistakes in client transactions resulting in
overpayments of attorney's fees to the firm, overpayments
to clients, and bank fees that were not covered by firm
funds.
4. Periodically, Respondent attempted to restore
misappropriated funds by leaving earned fees in his trust
account, but no regular accounting of those credits was
maintained.
5. As of August 31, 2011, Respondent had approximately
$565,806.86 in negative client ledger balances. At the time
of his interim suspension, the balance in Respondent's trust
account was $439,042.30.
6. As of the date of these stipulations, the attorney appointed
to protect Respondent's interests has restored the trust
account with funds received on behalf of Respondent in the
form of earned fees and cost reimbursements and has
reimbursed from those funds all clients, medical providers,
and lien holders with claims that have been identified to
date.3
7. Respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.8(e), 1.15, 5.3,
8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), Rule
407, SCACR.
8. The foregoing constitutes grounds for discipline pursuant to
Rule 7(a)(1), (5) and (6) of the Rules for Lawyer
Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE), Rule 413, SCACR.
The Panel found these aggravating factors:
(1) The serious nature of Respondent's misconduct, with more
than half a million dollars of client funds having been
converted by Respondent at the time of his suspension;
(2) Respondent's pattern of misconduct, having
misappropriated client funds over eleven years;
(3) The number of disciplinary rules violated:
(a) Rules 1.15 and 8.4(d), RPC, Rule 407
(misappropriation);
(b) Rule 1.8, RPC, Rule 407 (improper financial assistance
to clients);
(c) Rule 5.3(c)(1), RPC, Rule 407 (instructing legal
assistants to write checks to remove trust account funds for
improper purposes); and
3
At the Panel Hearing there was testimony was that some funds remain
undistributed as there are unresolved medical liens, and that one claim has been
"referred back to the [Lawyers Fund for Client Protection]."
(d) Rule 417, SCACR (failure to maintain trust account
records); and
(4) Respondent's prior disciplinary history, a 2009 Letter of
Caution finding he violated Rule 1.8(e), RPC, Rule 407,
which prohibits lawyers from providing financial assistance
to clients. Respondent admits to continuing to violate this
rule after receiving the Letter of Caution.
The Panel found the following matters mitigated Respondent's conduct:
(1) Respondent is sincerely remorseful and regretful, and
accepted full responsibility with honesty and candor;
(2) Respondent self-reported his misconduct, and fully
cooperated during the disciplinary proceedings; and
(3) Respondent's conduct following his interim suspension in
hiring an accountant to assist in identifying clients whose
funds had been misappropriated, thus allowing the attorney
to protect to distribute incoming funds to clients and
medical providers.4
While the Panel recognized "disbarment would seem to be the most appropriate
sanction," it recommended a three-year retroactive suspension based in part on the
mitigating factors, and in part on its belief that a lesser sanction will provide an
incentive for lawyers to self-report.
SANCTION
The authority to discipline lawyers and the manner in which discipline is imposed
is a matter within the Court's discretion. In re Jardine, 410 S.C. 369, 764 S.E.2d
924 (2014). Like the Panel, we are moved by the depth and sincerity of
Respondent's remorse and impressed by the level of cooperation he has
demonstrated since self-reporting his misconduct. We cannot, however, ignore
that in addition to violating Rules 1.8 and 5.3(C)(1), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, and
Rule 417, SCACR, Respondent took money that was not his from his trust account
4
But see Fn. 3, supra.
over the course of eleven years. We find disbarment is the appropriate sanction,
but order that it be retroactive to the date of Respondent's interim suspension,
September 2, 2011. We also order that within 30 days of the date of this opinion
Respondent pay the costs of this proceeding ($1,450.07), and comply with the
requirements of Rule 30, Rule 413, RLDE, SCACR. Further, we order that within
six months of reinstatement Respondent attend both the Legal Ethics and
Procedure Program Ethics School and the Trust Account School, and that for two
years after reinstatement, he provide the Commission on Lawyer Conduct with
quarterly reconciliations of his Trust Account.
DISBARRED.
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,
concur.