In the Matter of Marvin Lee Robertson, Jr., Respondent
Submitted: March 3, 2015.
Appellate Case No. 2015-000050.
Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sabrina C. Todd, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
M. Baron Stanton, Esquire, of Stanton Law Offices, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondent.
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
On June 15, 2009, this Court disbarred respondent from the practice of law. In the Matter of Robertson, 383 S.C. 140, 678 S.E.2d 440 (2009). He has not sought to be readmitted.
In the current attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). [411 S.C. 630] In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the
imposition of discipline. We accept the Agreement and disbar respondent with conditions as set forth hereafter. The disbarment shall run concurrently with respondent's June 15, 2009, disbarment. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.
In 2007, Jane Doe borrowed money against a house that was not her residence. Respondent had represented Ms. Doe on various business matters in the past and referred her to another attorney in the same office building to close the loan. The other attorney served as the settlement agent and handled virtually all aspects of the transaction before and after the closing. On the settlement date, however, respondent conducted the closing on behalf of the settlement agent. Ms. Doe then lent respondent $99,999.70 of the proceeds she received from the closing.
Respondent submits he fully intended to repay Ms. Doe and did not expect to be suspended from the practice of law. Respondent admits the loan constituted a business transaction with a client and he did not comply with the safeguards outlined in Rule 1.8(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR. Specifically, the transaction and its terms were not communicated to Ms. Doe in writing, she was not advised of the desirability of consulting independent legal counsel, and she never signed any document agreeing to the terms of the loan.
Respondent made some payments on the loan but ceased making payments in early 2008, around or after the time he was placed on interim suspension by consent.
In the Matter of Robertson, Order (S.C. S.Ct. filed February 22, 2008) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 8 at 14). The Court accepted respondent and ODC's Agreement for Discipline by Consent and disbarred respondent on June 15, 2009. In the Matter of Robertson, supra ...