From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Grant

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 16, 2001
541 S.E.2d 540 (S.C. 2001)

Opinion

Opinion No. 25233.

Submitted December 7, 2000.

Filed January 16, 2001.

Henry B. Richardson, Jr., and Michael S. Pauley, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Leland B. Greeley, of Rock Hill, for respondent.


PUBLIC REPRIMAND


In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent pursuant to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In the agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to a public reprimand. We accept the agreement and publicly reprimand respondent.

Facts

Respondent violated the discovery requirements contained in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to fully disclose exculpatory material and impeachment evidence regarding statements given by the State's key witness in a murder prosecution. The accused pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter as a result of the Brady violation.

The facts are discussed in detail in this Court's opinion inGibson v. State, 334 S.C. 515, 514 S.E.2d 320 (1999).

Law

By his conduct, respondent has violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 3.4(d) (failing to make a diligent effort to comply with the discovery request of an opposing party); Rule 3.8(d) (failing to make a timely disclosure to the defense of known evidence or information that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense); Rule 8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct); and Rule 8.4(e) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Respondent has also violated the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (violating rules regarding the professional conduct of lawyers); Rule 7(a)(5) (engaging in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or bring the legal profession into disrepute); and Rule 7(a)(6) (violating the oath of office taken upon admission to practice law in this state).

Conclusion

We find that respondent's misconduct warrants a public reprimand. We therefore accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and publicly reprimand respondent.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Grant

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 16, 2001
541 S.E.2d 540 (S.C. 2001)
Case details for

In the Matter of Grant

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Larry F. Grant, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jan 16, 2001

Citations

541 S.E.2d 540 (S.C. 2001)
541 S.E.2d 540

Citing Cases

Larsen v. Utah State Bar (In re Larsen)

We have found cases in which prosecutors have been given a lighter sanction. SeeIn re Kline , 113 A.3d 202…

In re Larsen

We have found cases in which prosecutors have been given a lighter sanction. See In re Kline, 113 A.3d 202…