Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneycompliance
attorneylawyercompliance

Related Cases

State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 644, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 799, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2149
View Case »
McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. F.E. Appling Interests, 991 S.W.2d 787, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 597
View Case »
Durkin v. Shea & Gould, 92 F.3d 1510, 65 USLW 2125, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6146, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,095
View Case »
Research Institute for Medicine and Chemistry, Inc. v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, 114 F.R.D. 672, 55 USLW 2668
View Case »
Malonis v. Harrington, 442 Mass. 692, 816 N.E.2d 115
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Diggs, 344 S.C. 397, 544 S.E.2d 628, 96 A.L.R.5th 599

Facts

Darrell Lester Diggs submitted a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) compliance report claiming credit for seminars that had not yet occurred. After being advised by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education that he could not claim future credits, he refiled the report but still included false claims. The Commission later verified attendance and found no record of Diggs at the claimed seminars. Diggs admitted to submitting incorrect information but argued that he believed he could claim credit based on his efforts to attend.

Diggs admits he submitted incorrect information to the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (“Commission”) on his CLE compliance report, which he signed and had notarized. Specifically, on December 29, 1997, Diggs submitted a CLE compliance report claiming 7.5 hours of credit for CLEs that were to occur on January 10, 1998, and January 23, 1998.

Issue

Should the panel have recommended a sanction harsher than a public reprimand for Diggs' CLE misconduct?

The following issue is before this Court: I. Should the panel have recommended a sanction harsher than a public reprimand for Diggs' CLE misconduct?

Rule

An attorney disciplinary violation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and the authority to discipline attorneys rests solely with the Court.

The authority to discipline attorneys and the manner in which the discipline is given rests entirely with this Court. In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, this Court is not bound by the findings made by the panel of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct or by the Commission itself.

Analysis

The court determined that Diggs knowingly made false statements under oath by submitting a CLE compliance report that included credit for seminars he did not attend. The court emphasized that truthful representations on CLE compliance reports are essential for the integrity of the CLE program, and Diggs' actions constituted perjury. Given the severity of the misconduct, the court found that a 90-day suspension was warranted.

Initially, Diggs submitted a CLE compliance report that included credit for two seminars which had not been held. By submitting this report, Diggs made a false statement under oath because the report was sworn and subscribed to before a notary public.

Conclusion

The court suspended Diggs from the practice of law for 90 days and found him responsible for the costs incurred by the Commission in this matter.

Therefore, Diggs is suspended from the practice of law for 90 days—the same penalty given in the Iseman case for CLE misrepresentation.

Who won?

The Commission on Continuing Legal Education prevailed in this case as the court upheld the recommendation for a 90-day suspension due to Diggs' misconduct.

Disciplinary Counsel argues the full panel should have recommended a sanction harsher than a public reprimand, given the level of Diggs' misconduct proven by the clear and convincing evidence standard.

You must be