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 90-06
Although an attorney may deposit with a 91黑料爆料rk of court, magistrate or municipal judge a check drawn on an identifiable trust account as cash in lieu of a surety bond, he or she may not advance money to a client in lieu of a surety bond.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-05
Assuming there exists no other basis for the attorney to decline representation, the representative of the client is not prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 32, Supreme Court Rules.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-04
It is the opinion of the Committee that the husband would be precluded from appearing before the Resident Judge on any matter while the wife is serving as the Judge's law 91黑料爆料rk.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-03
This request has already identified the areas in which problems are likely to arise as a result of the proposed arrangements for E corporation.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-02
The general provisions of the South Carolina Code of Professional Responsibility provide that a "lawyer should exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of a client."
Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-01
While the Attorney is permitted to advertise her certified specialty, Rules 7.1 and 7.4(a) prohibit her from stating that she has been "appointed" as a specialist. In addition, Rule 7.4(b) requires that care be taken in order to avoid the interference that the Attorney is a certified specialist in any area other than Estate Planning and Probate Law. Moreover, the announcement must be published in accordance with the requirements of Rule 7.2.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 89-01
An attorney should not enter into a contract to represent DSS at any review hearing involving a child which the attorney represented at the initial stages of the case. It is proper, however, for an attorney to represent S.C. DSS at a review hearing concerning a case in which the attorney has not been involved. Thus, attorneys can generally represent children at initial stages of certain child abuse cases and represent DSS at review hearings concerning child abuse cases in which they have not been involved. Such action by an attorney should not create a dual representation problem since the County Department of Social Services, against which the attorney takes a quasi-adversarial position in representing the children, and S.C. DSS are not identical agencies.