Let's Talk Dirt

A discussion of real estate, SC law, title and all things dirt-y.

Sidebar

Dig Through the Dirt

Recent Dirt

  • One-day error invalidates mechanic’s lien
  • Court of Appeals refiles order setting a timing rule on ATI exemption
  • Holiday wishes for you….
  • Rollback tax law in SC changes effective January 1, 2021
  • Will Bay Point Island in Beaufort County be developed?

Your Thoughts

Lydia Davidson on Holiday wishes for you….
Walt Heinsohn on Huge Nexton project takes top…
Taylor Hansen on What’s up with this crazy hous…
Taylor Hansen on What’s up with this crazy hous…
Linda Mathison on SC lawyer disbarred despite va…

Archaeology

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014

Categories

  • ALTA
  • Banking
  • Best Practices
  • CFPB
  • Department of Insurance
  • economy
  • Ethics
  • Fraud
  • Georgia law
  • Government / Federal
  • Lawyer Stuff
  • North Carolina Law
  • Real Estate
  • real estate closings
  • Real Estate Law
  • South Carolina
  • South Carolina law
  • taxes
  • technology
  • Title Insurance
  • Trends
  • Unauthorized Practice of Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Underwriting

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

In the Matter of Peeler

What NOT to do in your law office

Standard

Learn a lesson from this South Carolina Supreme Court case

My daughter used to watch a television show called “What Not to Wear”, a sort of reality show where family members had dreadful dressers basically kidnapped and schooled about the transgressions they were creating with their wardrobes.  I lived in fear for a while that my daughter was going to turn me in. That show came to mind when I read a recent judicial disciplinary case decided by the South Carolina Supreme Court on August 22.*

In this case, a probate judge was publicly reprimanded for two behaviors that should never occur in any office, and definitely not in a legal office or judge’s office. In addition to the public reprimand, the judge resigned his position.

red card - suit

What did he do?  First, he called court personnel names, “heifers” and “DW” (double wide). Seriously?  The judge admitted the inappropriate and unprofessional comments, but maintains he was joking when the comments were made. He also instigated “pranks and jokes” during working hours which he admitted were unprofessional and discourteous. We weren’t given details on the pranks and jokes, but we can only imagine based on the names he used for his staff members.

Trust me when I say no boss should call staff members names directly or indirectly commenting on their weight. And “pranks and jokes” are typically not a good idea either.

The second complaint came from the use of the probate court account for personal financial dealings. The judge had repairs done to the roof at his home and received two checks from his insurance company to cover the cost. Because his ex-wife held a fifty percent interest in the property, the insurance checks were made out to the judge and his ex-wife. The ex-wife is a former associate probate judge who worked for the judge, but who lived in Ohio during these events. Let your imagination run wild about what may have caused her to leave this employment and this marriage.

The judge asked his stepson to secure his ex-wife’s endorsement on the checks, which he did. When the bank wouldn’t accept the checks for deposit, the judge deposited them in the probate court’s account and wrote a check from that account to his stepson in the amount of the insurance proceeds.

The stepson did not use the funds to pay the roofing company and, instead, used the money for his own benefit. The judge learned of his stepson’s actions when he was served with a summons and complaint by the roofing company. The judge has now filed suit against the stepson to recover the money.

The Supreme Court stated that the strongest punishment available since the judge had resigned his position. The judge also agreed not to seek or accept another judicial position in South Carolina without first obtaining express written permission from the Supreme Court, after providing notice to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

*In the Matter of Peeler, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion No. 27830 (August 22, 2018)

  • Date September 5, 2018
  • Tags Chicago Title, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Claire Manning, Claire T. Manning, CTIC SC, In the Matter of Peeler, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Opinion No. 27830, personal financial dealings, probate court account, probate judge, public reprimand, South Carolina Supreme Court
  • Comments Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com.
Cancel