You cannot simply compare two disciplinary rulings involving alleged similar conduct and assume disparate treatment. There are a number of factors that go into what discipline is issued.
In your example above, Ginn only had two matters of misconduct while Newton had four. Ginn had already paid restitution while Newton had not. Ginn apparently had a mitigating mental health issue for which he was seeking treatment.
What is unknown is how many prior complaints or investigations had been instituted against the attorneys. There may not have been prior suspensions or reprimands, but there may have been numerous complaints before regarding Newton. Also, there could have been more complaints against Newton that weren’t included in the opinion.
Newton consented to the disbarment, so he knew that there was sufficient grounds to remove him from the practice.
You write about transparency. However, most of these complaints involve confidential attorney client issues that have to be protected during the investigation. Furthermore, publicly documenting allegations of misconduct that turn out to be unsustained could have a detrimental effect on the attorney’s reputation and ability to make a living.
Nickelodeon29072 Top fanOctober 17, 2023 at 1:55 pm
From what I’ve seen, the “just us” system in SC is a clown car filled with incompetents that would be funny to watch from a distance, but God forbid you get caught up in it’s gears, because then it goes from a comedy to a nightmare.
2 comments
You cannot simply compare two disciplinary rulings involving alleged similar conduct and assume disparate treatment. There are a number of factors that go into what discipline is issued.
In your example above, Ginn only had two matters of misconduct while Newton had four. Ginn had already paid restitution while Newton had not. Ginn apparently had a mitigating mental health issue for which he was seeking treatment.
What is unknown is how many prior complaints or investigations had been instituted against the attorneys. There may not have been prior suspensions or reprimands, but there may have been numerous complaints before regarding Newton. Also, there could have been more complaints against Newton that weren’t included in the opinion.
Newton consented to the disbarment, so he knew that there was sufficient grounds to remove him from the practice.
You write about transparency. However, most of these complaints involve confidential attorney client issues that have to be protected during the investigation. Furthermore, publicly documenting allegations of misconduct that turn out to be unsustained could have a detrimental effect on the attorney’s reputation and ability to make a living.
From what I’ve seen, the “just us” system in SC is a clown car filled with incompetents that would be funny to watch from a distance, but God forbid you get caught up in it’s gears, because then it goes from a comedy to a nightmare.