In the Matter of Jacob Leon Parrott, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-001451
Submitted August 25, 2017
M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and C. Tex Davis, Jr.,
Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for
Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Leon Parrott, of Myrtle Beach, Pro Se.
attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) 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 misconduct and consents
to discipline ranging from a public reprimand to a definite
suspension not to exceed nine months. Respondent requests the
sanction be made retroactive to the date of interim
suspension,  but understands that if the Court declines
to apply the sanction retroactively, the validity or
enforceability of the Agreement is not affected. ODC does not
oppose the request.
has agreed to pay the costs incurred by ODC and the
Commission on Lawyer Conduct in the investigation and
prosecution of this matter. Respondent has also agreed, as a
condition of discipline, to enter into a two year monitoring
contract with Lawyers Helping Lawyers and file annual reports
of his compliance with the contract with the Commission on
accept the Agreement and suspend respondent from the practice
of law in this state for nine months, not retroactive. The
facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.
August 2016, respondent was arrested and charged with
voyeurism pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-470(B)
(2015) after he used a cell phone to take a picture up a
woman's skirt in a grocery store. He was 56 years old at
the time. Respondent failed to inform the Commission on
Lawyer Conduct in writing within fifteen days of the arrest.
Respondent represents he reviewed the rule regarding
self-reporting an arrest and consulted with an attorney, but
concluded he did not have a duty to self-report.
January 2017, the charge was remanded to the municipal court
contingent upon respondent pleading guilty to assault and
battery, third degree. The following month, respondent pled
guilty as agreed and was sentenced to pay a fine of $776.
of an affidavit in mitigation, respondent states he is an
alcoholic in active recovery and attends Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) five to seven times a week. Respondent states he had
been sober for approximately 235 days as of the date of the
affidavit - May 15, 2017. He also attends a follow-up care
program at Coastal Recovery Center where he is completing
their intensive outpatient treatment program. He has provided
a letter from the Center regarding his continued
participation in outpatient treatment and stating respondent
appears to be committed to "life-long recovery in
abstinence based recovery principles."
explains that he progressed from being a social drinker to an
alcoholic in 2013 and began attending AA "off and
on" at that point, with some periods of sobriety,
including one twenty-month period. At the time, he was living
in Northern Virginia and had the support of sober friends and
an AA sponsor. Respondent states he was "highly
successful" while working in the Northern Virginia/DC
area where he "excelled" in positions with
Westlaw/Thomson Reuters. However, when Thomson Reuters
downsized, respondent lost his job. He took and passed the
Virginia bar examination and established a solo practice in
Northern Virginia, while maintaining his license to practice
law in South Carolina.
However, in August 2015, respondent moved from Virginia to
Myrtle Beach to care for his elderly mother. He took a job
with a criminal defense firm, but left their employ in
January 2016. Respondent neglected to participate in AA after
he relocated and soon relapsed, "culminating with binge
drinking in the summer of 2016." At his family's
insistence, he scheduled himself to be checked in to an
inpatient treatment facility. However, on the day he was
scheduled to report to the treatment facility, he was charged
with the crime that is the basis of this disciplinary action.
Respondent was highly intoxicated at the time of the incident
and when he checked in to the treatment facility later that
day. He completed a twenty-eight day inpatient program
followed by two months of intensive outpatient treatment.
Respondent has submitted a letter from the treatment facility
regarding his participation in treatment while hospitalized.
notes that in nearly thirty-four years of practice as an
assistant solicitor and a private practitioner, no client or
any other party has lodged any ...