In the Matter of Ray A. Lord, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-001218
Submitted October 26, 2017
M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, of Columbia, for Office of
Steedley Bogan, Bogan Law Firm, of Columbia for Respondent.
attorney disciplinary matter, the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel and Respondent 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 the imposition of a confidential admonition or public
reprimand. We accept the Agreement and issue a public
reprimand. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as
market his legal services, Respondent sent direct mail
solicitation letters to potential clients who received
traffic tickets. A recipient of one of the letters filed a
complaint with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. In response
to the complaint in this matter, Respondent acknowledged the
following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in
his solicitation letters:
1. Respondent used the tagline "attorneys at law"
on his law firm letterhead. The tagline was misleading
because Respondent is a solo practitioner.
2. Respondent claimed that he has "28 years experience
both as a lawyer and former law enforcement officer" in
his solicitation materials. Respondent acknowledges the claim
was misleading because he has only been a lawyer and
former law enforcement officer for sixteen years.
Respondent's intention was to relay that he has
twenty-eight years total experience as a law enforcement
officer and as a lawyer combined.
3. Respondent used the telephone number (844) FIXTICKET. Use
of the phoneword is the equivalent of a nickname, tradename,
or moniker and is likely to create unjustified expectations
or an implication that he can achieve results by unethical
means. Furthermore, the phoneword is a moniker that implies
an ability to obtain a certain result.
4. Respondent stated in his solicitation letters that he
learned about the recipient's traffic ticket from
"court records." Respondent's identification of
the source of his information was not sufficiently specific.
solicitation letter specifically referred the recipient to
the website of Respondent's law firm. On his website, he
claimed he has "unique insight into the South Carolina
traffic laws that many other lawyers simply do not
have." Respondent admits this claim cannot be factually