In The Matter Of Hammer

395 S.C. 385, 718 S.E.2d 442 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D and his wife separated and, in 2007, became involved in a contentious divorce. D was charged with criminal domestic violence, two counts of trespassing, second-degree burglary, stalking, and simple assault. As a result of these arrests, D was placed on interim suspension. The criminal charges involved matters with D's former wife and former sister-in-law. All charges were dismissed with prejudice and the solicitor issued a letter stating that, after thorough and complete investigation, he believed that the matters did not rise to the level of criminal wrongdoing and that all of the matters should be dealt with by the Family Court. D denied committing any crimes but stated he could have used better judgment. D filed a pro se action against the City alleging false arrest. D subpoenaed Witness A, a former neighbor and long-time friend of both him and his former wife, to give a deposition. Witness A was not a witness to any of the matters. Witness A had provided an affidavit in support of the former wife during the divorce proceeding. D subpoenaed two other former neighbors who had supported his former wife during the divorce proceedings. D believed that all three might have information regarding the allegations of criminal wrongdoings made by his former wife. D deposed Witness A for over five hours, including breaks. D admits he asked improper questions during the deposition. He further admits that there were times when he talked over the deponent and there were instances where he did not let Witness A finish his answer. D admits he asked a number of improper questions about his sexual orientation and whether he had been tested for HIV. He also asked Witness A whether he had Alzheimer's Disease when the witness' recollection was incomplete. D admits the question should not have been asked in this fashion. D has since signed a Settlement Agreement and Release and Stipulation of Dismissal concluding the matter against the City and its police department. D admitted his misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline under Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct), Rule 7(a) (5)(it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to engage in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law), and Rule 7(a)(6) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to violate the oath of office taken to practice law in this state) D admits he has violated Rule 4.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: (in representing client, lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person), Rule 8.4(a) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct), and Rule 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). P and D motioned to have their settlement agreement approved.