Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Paschal

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 13, 2015

In the Matter of Kay Paschal, Respondent

Submitted April 23, 2015

Appellate Case No. 2015-000534.

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Barbara M. Seymour, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

S. Jahue Moore, Sr., Esquire, of Moore Taylor Law Firm, P.A., of West Columbia, for Respondent.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

In this 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). In the Agreement, respondent admits mis [412 S.C. 326] conduct and consents to the imposition of a definite suspension of nine (9) months to three (3) years or disbarment. Respondent requests that the suspension or disbarment be imposed retroactively to January 3, 2012, the date of her interim suspension. In the Matter of Paschal, 396 S.C. 286, 721 S.E.2d 428 (2012). In addition, respondent agrees to pay the costs incurred in the

Page 272

investigation and prosecution of this matter within thirty (30) days of the imposition of discipline. We accept the Agreement and suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state for three (3) years, retroactive to the date of her interim suspension. Further, we order respondent to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

Facts

Background

Mr. Doe owned a real estate investment company. Respondent met Mr. Doe in March 1984 when he came to her office to meet a client. At the time respondent met Mr. Doe, he was married to Mrs. Doe who also served as the corporate secretary for the real estate investment company. Mr. and Mrs. Doe had two children.

Shortly after they met in 1984, respondent and Mr. Doe began a private, personal relationship. In early 1985, respondent and Mr. Doe began a secret, sexual relationship that continued until after Mrs. Doe's death in 2001.

In 2005, respondent and Mr. Doe lived together and continued their sexual relationship. They remained close companions. Mr. Doe died in February 2011 at the age of 88.

Matter I

From 1986 until 1997, respondent represented Mrs. Doe in a variety of legal matters. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.