The 91黑料爆料 Ethics Advisory Committee provides the full text of all ethics opinions since 1990 online. To find the opinion you need, simply use the search form below.
The opinions in this database contain the advice of the Committee based on the state of the law at the time of each opinion. Opinions are not updated to reflect changes in the , more recent opinions, or other law. Further research may be necessary. Earlier opinions are available through vLex Fastcase.
Frequently Asked Questions are also available.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 19-04
Attorney may appear for and defend an Insured who cannot be located at the request of the Insurance Carrier if Insurance Carrier’s insurance contract with the Insured gives it the right to retain counsel to defend claims made against the Insured. Where a person has, by contract, including insurance contract, delegated authority to another to choose counsel, conduct the defense of a claim, and perhaps even settle a matter within certain boundaries, an attorney may reasonably rely upon the instruction of the person’s agent, in this situation Insurance Carrier, to appear and conduct the defense of the case in the absence of any direction from the missing Insured to the contrary.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 19-03
Addressing the question of: Does a South Carolina lawyer’s ownership interest in a cannabis-related business amount to criminal conduct that “reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer” or otherwise constitute “a criminal act involving moral turpitude”? While we do not express opinions on questions of law, the Committee cautions South Carolina licensed attorneys from participating in activities that are illegal under state or federal law, as criminal activity may constitute a violation of Rule 8.4, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 19-02
Lawyer received a favorable ruling from the Resolution of Fee Disputes Board against Former Client. The award of fees was affirmed on appeal and entered as a judgment. Former Client has not paid the judgment and appears to have no South Carolina assets subject to execution. Former Client has left South Carolina but may have property elsewhere.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 19-01
On or about January 31, 2018, clients entered into a contingency fee agreement with Law Firm A. At some point in August of 2018, clients terminated their relationship with Law Firm A. Law Firm A had not submitted a demand packet to the defendant's insurance company and no negotiations for settlement had commenced prior to clients' terminating Law Firm A.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-06
1. May a lawyer or law firm associate with the brokerage company or vendor under the proposed arrangement? 2. Do any of the fees paid to the broker or merchant constitute the prohibited sharing of legal fees with non-lawyers pursuant to Rules 1.7, 1.8, 5.4 or any other Rule?
Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-05
Licensed South Carolina Lawyer wants to accept earnest money deposits from a client through PayPal. Questions: (1) May a lawyer accept an earnest money deposit through PayPal? (2) If a lawyer may accept an earnest money deposit through PayPal, when does the lawyer have to transfer the money from PayPal?
Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-04
Lawyer A sends an email to Lawyer B and copies several people, including Lawyer A’s client. Lawyer A has not previously consented to Lawyer B contacting Lawyer A’s client and does not expressly do so in the email. Question: If Lawyer B receives an email from Lawyer A on which Lawyer A’s client is copied, may the lawyer “reply to all” – copying Lawyer A’s client with the response – without the express consent of Lawyer A?
Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-03
In large part, the questions posed by the Inquirer involve legal issues that are beyond the Committee’s purview. Addressing only those aspects of the Inquiry that potentially raise concerns under the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee’s opinion is as follows: Question 1: An attorney who has been involved in substantive matters during the investigative phase of a complaint should not act as Advice Counsel during the adjudicatory phase. Acting in such a dual capacity raises the specter of undue influence on the Agency’s decision-making process, regardless of the care taken by the attorney to avoid any actual impropriety. Question 2: The decision to seek reconsideration of, or to appeal, the panel’s order is one for the Agency head, as the client. The Prosecuting Attorney must communicate and consult with the Agency head on whether to seek reconsideration or to appeal. In doing so, the Prosecuting Attorney should render candid advice regarding not only the law but also other relevant considerations, which may include the views of the complainant.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-02
Yes, Lawyer may accept financial assistance from the chiropractor to facilitate the dissemination of advertisements on behalf of the Lawyer, with an expectation of client referrals to the chiropractor for treatment, provided adequate disclosures are made. In addition to disclosing the relationship, Lawyer should obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing, regarding the substantial risk that the existence of the relationship may materially limit Lawyer’s ability to represent clients who obtain treatment with the chiropractor.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-01
May Lawyer act as a property and casualty insurance agent for a local insurance agency selling automobile insurance for insurance carriers Lawyer may submit claims against in Lawyer’s law firm? Yes, provided Lawyer ensures that (1) he does not perform legal work as an insurance agent, and (2) his representation of clients against insurance carriers with which he works as an insurance agent is not materially limited by his responsibilities as an agent.