S.C. Supreme Court Aims To Make Discipline Of Lawyers, Judges More Transparent

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In a surprise move, the South Carolina Supreme Court approved changes to the way complaints against lawyers and judges are handled — tweaking long-standing rules that critics say have shielded misconduct and eroded public trust.

The new rules (.pdf) — effective July 1, 2025 — revise several key provisions in the state’s rules for lawyer and judicial disciplinary enforcement, namely Rules 12, 14, 18 and 19. They also require, for the first time, the public release of anonymized summaries for dismissed judicial complaints and confidential sanctions — such as letters of caution and private admonitions — that have historically remained hidden behind closed doors.

These changes come less than two years after FITSNews published an in-depth investigation examining the persistent gaps and failures in South Carolina’s disciplinary system for attorneys — a system which has repeatedly drawn fire for its lack of transparency, consistency and public accountability.

***

A CULTURE OF CONFIDENTIALITY UNDER PRESSURE

South Carolina’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) has long operated with an extraordinary degree of confidentiality — far more than is common in other states. Until now, the public was rarely informed when complaints were dismissed or when judges received private warnings for misconduct that didn’t rise to the level of a formal charge. This lack of transparency made it nearly impossible to evaluate whether the system was working — or failing.

That will change under the court’s June 25 order (.pdf). Beginning this summer, ODC and the counsel for the commission on judicial conduct will be required to publish quarterly summaries of all judicial complaints that are dismissed – as well as those which result in confidential sanctions. While these summaries will not name the judges involved, they must identify the type of judge (e.g., circuit, magistrate), the nature of the complaint or misconduct and the reason for the outcome.

In its order, the court acknowledged that while confidentiality remains important, the public deserves more insight into how complaints are handled.

“The public must be better informed about what sort of judicial complaints are dismissed,” the court wrote. “Knowledge and understanding are critical to ensure the public has confidence that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us.”

***

RELATED | THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE IN SOUTH CAROLINA

***

KEY RULE CHANGES AFFECTING LAWYERS AND JUDGES

The revised rules also introduce several structural and procedural reforms that will impact how complaints are filed, screened, and investigated:

• Rule 12: Disciplinary counsel may now share confidential complaint information with disciplinary authorities in other states — enhancing interstate cooperation and ensuring lawyers or judges facing misconduct allegations across jurisdictions are properly held to account.
• Rule 14: Complaints must now include more specific factual allegations, including the identity of the accused lawyer or judge and a detailed description of each act of misconduct. Complaints lacking specificity may be dismissed.
• Rule 19: Disciplinary counsel is granted broader discretion to review publicly available documents, request more information from the accused, and immediately dismiss complaints that are “facially frivolous” or based solely on media reports or social media posts from individuals lacking firsthand knowledge. The rule also allows for dismissal of stale claims—those filed more than five years after the alleged misconduct was or should have been discovered—unless exceptions like fraud or concealment apply.
• Rule 18: Complainants whose cases are dismissed under the new timeliness rule will now have a limited right of review by an investigative panel — adding a layer of oversight that didn’t exist before.

***

RELATED | TRIAL LAWYER LEADER FINALLY CALLS OUT FALLEN DYNASTY

***

STILL ROOM FOR SKEPTICISM

While the rule changes represent a step toward transparency, the question remains whether these reforms go far enough — particularly in a state where some of the most egregious attorney misconduct in modern memory has only come to light through extensive investigative reporting and courtroom exposure.

The ongoing saga of convicted killer Alex Murdaugh and his accomplices – who used the Palmetto State’s court system to steal millions of dollars from vulnerable clients over a period of nearly a decade-and-a-half. Once a powerful figure within South Carolina’s storied “Trial Lawyer Kingdom,” Murdaugh was convicted in 2023 of murdering his wife and son, a verdict that stunned the nation. But long before that, Murdaugh had exploited his legal privilege to defraud clients, steal from vulnerable individuals — including a quadriplegic man and the family of his deceased housekeeper — and manipulate the judicial system for personal gain.

It was the sheer magnitude and visibility of the Murdaugh case — magnified by national media attention and relentless investigative reporting — that brought long-simmering issues within South Carolina’s disciplinary system into full public view. What had once been an insular, opaque process was suddenly under the microscope, forcing uncomfortable questions about how Murdaugh was able to operate with impunity for so long.

***

The same goes for the institutional environment in which Murdaugh and his co-conspirators perfected their schemes. The lack of oversight, the failure to act on credible complaints, and the broad shield of confidentiality all played a role in enabling misconduct — not just in his case, but across the broader legal and judicial system.

FITSNews’ reporting has revealed a broader pattern of delayed accountability and disciplinary opacity. In some cases, judges and attorneys who committed serious ethical breaches quietly received private admonishments or confidential caution letters — outcomes hidden from public view. Until now, there was no requirement to inform the public about these cases, leaving citizens in the dark about whether justice was truly being served.

Whether these changes are a first step toward broader reform or simply an effort to restore confidence without ceding real oversight remains to be seen. What’s clear is that South Carolina’s legal disciplinary system — long protected by institutional silence — is finally facing long-overdue scrutiny. And that’s thanks, in large part, to the sunlight brought by journalism and the willingness of the public to demand better.

***

THE ORDERS…

(S.C. Supreme Court)

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR …

As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.