BWW ECEIVE]) FER 14 022 5 COMMISSION ON The Supreme Court of South Caroliwawer conovct OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL John S. Nichols Pst Office Box 12159 Disepinary Counsel Columba, South Carona 26211 Jamie E, Wison Telephone: (803) 734-2038 ‘Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Fax (805) 734-1968 Email; OOGmal@sccours ora February 14, 2022 HAND DELIVERED PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL Deborah S. McKeown, Counsel ‘Commission on Lawyer Conduct 1220 Senate Street, Suite 111 Columbia, SC 29201 Re: _ In the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent ODC File Number: 21-DE-L-0830 21-DE-L-0878 21-DE-L-0946 21-DE-L-0947 21-DE-L-0981 21-DE-L-0994 Dear Ms. McKeown: | have enclosed the original copy of the Formal Charges and Disciplinary Counset’s Motion to Diminish in the above-referenced matters. Please file the original and return two clocked copies to me, Please also prepare a Notice of Filing of Formal Charges so that | can serve the Respondent in accordance with Rule 22, RLDE. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, sJamiet. Wilkow Jamie E. Wilson Enclosurescc: James Mixon Griffin, Esquire Counsel for RespondentThe Supreme Court of South Carolina OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ote 8. Nicho's Post Offee Box 12169 Discpinary Counset Columbia, South Carolina 20211 amie €. Wilson Telephone: (803) 734-2038 Assistant Discipinary Counsel Fax. (803) 734-1986 malt OOGmal@sccours.org February 14, 2022 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL James Mixon Griffin, Esquire Post Office Box 999 Columbia, SC 29202 RE: _ In the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent ODC File Number: 21-DE-L-0830 21-DE-L-0878 21-DE-L-0946 21-DE-L-0947 21-DE-L-0981 21-DE-L-0994 Dear Mr. Griffin: Enclosed please find a copy of Notice of Filing of Formal Charges with attached Formal Charges and Disciplinary Counsel's Motion to Diminish, in the above-referenced matters. A copy of our certificate of service is also enclosed. Mr. Murdaugh is required to file a written answer to these charges with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct and serve a copy on the Disciplinary Counsel, as set out in the Notice. Please note that the Commission on Lawyer Conduct has assigned a docket number to this matter. Please use that number on pleadings and other documents filed with the Commission. Please also note that the Commission requires that you file the original and the answer and other documents filed with the Commission and that you serve a copy of any such documents on the Disciplinary Counsel Sincerely, sJamiet, Wasorw Jamie E. WilsonEnclosure cc: Deborah S. McKeown, Counsel Commission on Lawyer ConductBay STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT IN THE MATTER OF: Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent. Docket Number: 22A-CLE-SOB NOTICE OF FILING OF FORMAL CHARGES TO: Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to Rule 22 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE), Rule 413, SCAGR, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to the Supreme Court of South Carolina has filed formal charges against you with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct, a copy of which is attached hereto, and according to Rule 23(a), RLDE, you are required to file the original and seven copies of your written answer to the formal charges with the Commission and serve a copy thereof on the Office of Disciplinary Counsel within 30 days after service of this notice and the attached formal charges upon you, unless the time therefore should otherwise be extended by a hearing panel of the Commission. Peon Barbara W. Hinson, Administrative Assistant Commission on Lawyer Conduct Dated: February 14, 2022STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT IN THE MATTER OF: Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent. Docket Number: 2 A -CLC- 993 FORMAL CHARGES The Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of South Carolina alleges the following: Jurisdiction 4. Pursuant to the provisions of article V, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution and the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 40-5-10, et. seq., (1976, as amended), the Supreme Court of South Carolina promulgated the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE), Rule 413, SCACR, effective January 1, 1997. 2. The respondent, Richard Alexander Murdaugh (Respondent), is, and was at all times relative to the matters alleged herein, a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in South Carolina and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of South Carolina and the provisions of the RLDE. 3. On December 10, 2021, an investigative panel of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct authorized the filing of these Formal Charges. Page 14, The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is informed and believes that the Respondent committed misconduct as follows Allegations of Misconduct 5, Matter 21-DE-L-0830: ‘A. On or about February 23, 2019, Respondent's son ("P.M.”) was involved in a boating accident along with five (5) other passengers. The accident resulted in the death of one (1) of the passengers, M.B., and injuries to the other passengers. B. During law enforcement's brief initial investigation that occurred on the night of the accident, at least one (1) of the passengers identified P.M. as the boat's driver. . On the night of the accident, Respondent and his father traveled to the hospital where P.M, and the other boat passengers had been transported. D. While at the hospital, Respondent and his father informed law enforcement that P.M. was represented by counsel, and that P.M. would not be cooperating with law enforcement. E, While at the hospital, Respondent made attempts to enter the other boat passengers’ rooms. F, Respondent ultimately approached C.C. (a boat passenger) in the hallway of the hospital. Respondent advised C.C. that ‘everything would be alright.” Respondent instructed C.C. to "keep his mouth shut” and to inform law enforcement that C.C. did not know who was driving the boat at the time of the accident. Respondent further advised C.C., "I got you.” Page 2G. C.C. knew that Respondent was P.M.’s father, but Respondent did not inform C.C. that he was representing P.M.’s legal interests that night. H. On or about April 18, 2019, P.M. was arrested and charged with three (3) counts of Felony Boating Under the Influence, causing great bodily harm and death in connection to the accident. (On or about March 29, 2019, the personal representative of the Estate of M.B. commenced a wrongful death action, naming Respondent as one of the defendants. J. On or about January 13, 2020, C.C. gave a deposition in the wrongful death action. K. During the deposition, C.C. testified that when he was initially questioned by law enforcement, he informed them that he did not remember who was driving the boat. L. C.C. later recanted that statement. C.C. testified that he knew P.M. was the boat's driver, but lied to law enforcement only to follow Respondent's instructions. M. C.C. later filed a lawsuit against Respondent for Respondent's conduct in misdirecting law enforcement’s criminal investigation away from P.M. and orchestrating a scheme to silence and wrongfully shift law enforcement's focus to C.C. as being the boat's driver." N. Respondent's conduct in giving legal advice to C.C. without appropriate disclosures and informed consent when Respondent knew or should have known 'C.C's lawsuit is currently pending in the Hampton County Court of Common Pleas. Page 3that C.C.'s interests were in direct conflict with the interests of P.M. violated Rules 1.7 and 4.3, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. ©. Respondent's conduct in advising C.C. to "keep his mouth shut" and to submit a false statement to law enforcement violated Rules 3.4(b), 3.4(f), 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, and Rule 402(h)(3), SCACR. Matter 21-DE-L-0871 ‘A. On or about September 22, 2015, and August 31, 2018, Respondent opened two (2) bank accounts with Bank of America using the name of a fictitious entity, “Forge.” B. Respondent opened the "Forge” bank accounts only in Respondent's name as ‘owner of the accounts. Respondent was the only person authorized to deposit or withdraw money from those bank accounts. C. The name “Forge” was similar to that of a legitimate structured settlement consulting firm (Forge Consulting, LLC) with which Respondent's law firm (Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth, and Detrick, P.A. or “P.M.P.E.0") utilized to facilitate structured settlements for its clients. D. Respondent instructed P.M.P.E.D.’s accounting staff to issue checks from the trust account to his personal “Forge" bank accounts under the guise that he would create client accounts with Forge Consulting, LLC. E. Because P.M.P.E.D.’s accounting staff required client approval before issuing ‘checks from the trust account on a clients’ behalf, Respondent fraudulently altered disbursement sheets to reflect client authorization. Page 4x Respondent either forged clients’ signatures on disbursement sheets or misrepresented information to clients to induce them to authorize the disbursements. . Respondent presented altered disbursement sheets to P.M.P.E.D.’s accounting staff to have checks issued to his “Forge” bank accounts. . Once P.M.P.E.D.’s accounting staff issued checks, Respondent deposited the checks into the "Forge" bank accounts. Respondent converted funds owed to P.M.P.E.D. and to P.M.P.E.D’s clients for his personal use. On or about September 2, 2021, after a review of Respondent's client files, a partner from P.M.P.E.D. consulted with a representative from Forge Consulting, LLC and confirmed that Respondent had not structured any settlement proceeds or fees with Forge Consulting, LLC with respect to the clients in question. (On or about September 3, 2021, members of P.M.P.E.D. confronted Respondent about misappropriating clients’ funds and diverting law firm funds for his personal use. On or about September 24, 2021, Respondent (through Counsel) self-reported this misconduct to ODC and admitted to misappropriating clients’ funds and diverting law firm funds to support his opioid addiction. 2 In some instances, Respondent bypassed P.M.P.E.D's office policy completely and submitted disbursement sheets to P.VLP.E.D's accounting staff without including client signatures or any client authorization at all 3 At the time of the filing of formal charges, ODC has identified that while empioyed with P.M.P.E.D., Respondent misappropriated approximately $2,879,615.86 in client and law firm funds and negatively Impacted approximately 16 clients through the use of the bogus "Forge" bank accounts. ODC is still investigating the exact amount of funds that Respondent misappropriated from P.M.P.E.D. Page 5M. Respondent's conduct in depositing clients’ funds into his personal “Forge” bank accounts violated Rules 1.15(a) and 1.15(g), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. NN. Respondent's conduct in altering disbursement documentation and misappropriating clients’ funds and diverting law firm funds for his personal use violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, and Rule 402(h)(3), SCACR. 7. Matter 21-DE-L-0946: ‘A. Husband and wife, D.F and AF, retained three (3) attorneys from three (3) different law firms to represent them in a traffic accident case. B. DF. and AF. retained Respondent and P.M.P.E.D. as one (1) of the three (3) law firms. ©. Following a favorable verdict from a bench trial conducted on or about January 6, 2021 and January 7, 2021, the court awarded D.F. and the Estate of A.F.4 $1,500,000.00 and $4,000,000.00, respectively. Of those awards, Respondent and P.M.P.E.D earned a total of $792,000.00 in attorneys’ fees. D. At the time of the disbursement of fees, Respondent instructed Attomey Chris W., one (1) of the other attorneys D.F. and AF. retained, to disburse P.M.P.E.D.'s attorneys’ fees directly to Respondent as opposed to disbursing the fees to P.M.P.E.D. E. Respondent informed Attorney Chris W. that P.IV.P.E.D. knew of and approved of disbursing the fees directly to Respondent. “AF, passed away sometime after the lawsuit commenced, Page 6On or about March 10, 2021, Attorney Chris W. disbursed the fees directly to Respondent, and Respondent diverted the attorneys’ fees owed to P.M.P.E.D. and deposited them into his personal bank account for his personal use. . On or about May 13, 2021, Attorney Chris W. disbursed two (2) checks in the amounts of $14,619.13 and $14,619.14 to P.M.P.E.D. for litigation costs connected to the cases for D.F. and the Estate of A.F. |. On May 19, 2021, after receiving the litigation costs checks, a paralegal from P.M.P.E.D. contacted Attorney Chris W's staff to inquire about the corresponding disbursement sheet and the missing attorneys’ fees. Attorney Chris W.’s staff member informed P.M.P.E.D.’s paralegal that a check for the attorneys’ fees had been provided to Respondent. A partner from P.M.P.E.D. then contacted Attorney Chris W. to inquire about the status of the attorneys’ fees and indicated that P.M.P.E.D. was not aware of and had not authorized a direct disbursement of fees to Respondent. . On or about July 15, 2021 and July 16, 2021, Respondent wired $600,000.00 to Attorney Chris W. and advised him that he needed to disburse the fees directly to P.MP.E.D. Respondent failed to send the remaining $192,000.00 to Attorney Chris W. |. On or about July 19, 2021, Respondent forwarded an email from Attorney Chris W. to a P.M.P.E.D. partner confirming that the attomeys' fees owed to P.M.P.E.D. were in Attorney Chris W.'s trust account. Attorney Chris W. later paid P.M.P.E.D. the entire $792,000.00, using his own personal funds to cover the missing $192,000.00. Page 7©. Respondent's conduct in falsely informing Attorney Chris W. that P.M.P.E.D. had authorized a direct disbursement of fees to him violated Rules 4.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, and 402(h)(3), SCACR. P. Respondent's conduct in diverting law firm funds to his personal bank account for his personal use violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(¢), 1.15(9), 8.4(a), 8.4(0), 8.4(d), 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, and Rule 402(h)(3), SCACR. 8. Matter 21. 1947 and Matter 21-DE-L-0994: ‘A. On or about February 2, 2018, G.S., Respondent's former longtime housekeeper, sustained severe injuries while at Respondent's home B. On or about February 26, 2018, G.S. passed away, allegedly from injuries sustained at Respondent's home. Her funeral was held on February 28, 2018. ©. Shortly after G.S.’s death, Respondent approached G.S.'s family members, stating that he was going to sue himself in a wrongful death action on behalf of G.S’'s sons, M.S. and B.H (G.S.'s sole heirs). D. Respondent also informed G.S.'s family members that he intended to “take care of the boys," referring to M.S. and B.H E. On or about March 1, 2018, approximately one (1) day after G.S.'s funeral and three (3) days after her death, Respondent introduced M.S. and B.H. to Attorney Crs F. Respondent encouraged M.S. and B.H. to retain Attorney C.F. to represent them in the wrongful death action against Respondent G. MS. and B.H. followed Respondent's advice and retained Attomey C.F. as their attorney.® ® Attorney C.F. is the same attoriey mentioned in Matter 21-DE-L-0830, Page 8H. Respondent failed to disclose to M.S. and B.H. that he and Attorney C.F. shared a close, long-standing friendship that dated back to their college years. 1. On or about March 8, 2018, Attomey C.F. sent Respondent a letter of representation on behalf of the Estate of G.S. J. On or about March 26, 2018, Respondent (despite being named as the defendant in the case) prepared and filed the probate documents to appoint M.S. as the personal representative of G.S.'s estate. K. Respondent then asserted to two (2) of his insurance carriers that he was liable for G.S.'s death L. Respondent's insurance carriers agreed to pay $505,000.00 and $3,800,000.00 to settle the wrongful death claims against Respondent. M. Before the insurance carriers issued the settlement checks, Respondent orchestrated M.S.’s resignation as the personal representative of G.S.'s estate. N. In November of 2018, Respondent advised Attorney C.F. that M.S. lacked the ability to manage the settlement funds and that a professional personal representative should be appointed. ©. On or about December 13, 2018, Respondent prepared and filed probate documents that substituted a local bank's vice president ("Chad W.’) as the personal representative of G.S.’s estate. P. Chad W. was also Respondent's personal acquaintance. While Respondent disclosed the nature of his relationship with Chad W. to Attorney C.F., he did not disclose that information to M.S. or B.H. ® itis not exactly clear when M.S. and B.H. retained Attorney C.F. as there was no engagement letter or fee agreement executed in this matter. Page 9. After the insurance carriers issued the settlement checks, Respondent directed ‘Attomey C.F. to issue the checks to “Forge,” Respondent's fictitious entity and bank account. R. On or about January 7, 2019 and May 13, 2019, Attorney C.F. disbursed settlement checks to Respondent in the amounts of $403,500.00 and $2,961,931.95." 8. On or about October 6, 2020, Respondent met with C.F. and signed a Stipulation of Dismissal to conclude the matter.° C.F. then disbursed a third check in the amount of $118,000 to Respondent. This check was also issued to one (1) of Respondent's “Forge” bank accounts. T. Respondent failed to deliver any of the settlement proceeds to Forge Consulting, LLC, but instead deposited each check into one (1) of the bogus "Forge" bank accounts for his personal use. U. On or about September 15, 2021, M.S. and B.H. initiated a law suit against Respondent for the conversion of their lawful settlement funds as statutory and intestate heirs of G.S. V. M.S. and B.H.'s lawsuit is currently pending in the Hampton County Court of Common Pleas. W. During a bond hearing held on or about January 11, 2022, Respondent's Counsel stated on the record that Respondent agreed to confess a judgment in ? The final settlement amounts reflect a deduction of attorneys! fees and other litigation costs. These settlement proceeds were disbursed without fing signed Orders approving the wrongful death settlements. ® When Respondent signed the Stipulation of Dismissal, he was represented by counsel. Respondent's ‘counsel did not sign the Stipulation of Dismissal. Page 10the amount of $4.3 million to M.S. and B.H. Respondent issued an apology to MS. and B.H.'s family during the hearing X. M.S. and B.H. also named Chad W. and Attorney C.F. as defendants in their lawsuit. Y. On or about October 14, 2021, Respondent was arrested and criminally charged with two (2) counts of Obtaining Property by False Pretenses for his misconduct in this matter. Z. Respondent's conduct in soliciting M.S. and B.H. (immediately after the death and funeral of their mother) for the professional employment of Attorney C.F. violated Rules 7.3(b)(2), 7.3(b)(3), 7.3(b)(5), and 8.4(a), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. AA. Respondent's conduct in misappropriating and diverting M.S. and B.H.’s lawful settlement funds for his own personal use violated Rules 8.4(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(e), and 402(h)(3), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. 9. Matter 21-1 981: A. On or about September 4, 2021, Respondent conspired with a former client (°C.S') to assist Respondent in committing suicide for the explicit purpose of allowing Respondent's surviving son to collect as the beneficiary of Respondent's life insurance policy. B. Respondent provided C.S. with a firearm and directed C.S. to shoot Respondent in the head for the purpose of causing Respondent's death and to make his death appear as a homicide. C. By employing C.S. to murder him, Respondent intended to avoid a suicide exclusion he believed existed as a condition of his life insurance policy. Page 11D. C:S. allegedly shot Respondent, but Respondent survived the alleged shooting. E. Respondent falsely reported to 911 and law enforcement authorities that he was shot in the head by an unknown assailant, while changing his tire on the side of the road. Respondent was transported to the hospital for treatment. F. Respondent admitted to law enforcement that he had hired C.S. to murder him 0 that Respondent's son could receive life insurance proceeds. G. Law enforcement charged Respondent with Insurance Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Insurance Fraud, and Filing a False Police Report. H. On or about September 16, 2021, Respondent (through Counsel) admitted to this misconduct at his initial bond hearing held in Hampton County before the Honorable Tonja Alexander. 1. On or about September 24, 2021, in connection with his self-report in Matter 21- DE-L-0878, Respondent admitted that he “attempted to commit suicide by arranging for his drug supplier to kill him.” J. Respondent's conduct in conspiring with another person to commit insurance fraud and making a false report to law enforcement violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, and Rule 402(h)(3), SCACR. Misconduct and Sanction 10. The forgoing constituted misconduct as defined in Rule 7(a), RLDE, on Respondent's part in that such conduct was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, including but not limited to the Rules set forth above, the Lawyer's Oath, and any other Rule the Panel or the Court might deem violated by Respondent's conduct. Page 1214. As a result of the foregoing, Respondent has committed misconduct as proscribed by the following provisions of Rule 7, RLDE: a) Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE, in that Respondent violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and/or other rules of this jurisdiction in regard to Respondent's professional conduct; b) Rule 7(a)(5), RLDE, in that Respondent engaged in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice, tending to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute or demonstrating an unfitness as to practice law; and c) Rule 7(a)(6), RLDE, in that Respondent violated the Oath of Office taken upon admission to practice law in South Carolina 12. Based on the foregoing, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel recommends that: a) The Commission conduct a public hearing into the facts and circumstances surrounding these matters; b) The Commission find that the Respondent committed misconduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, the Lawyer's Oath found in Rule 402, SCACR, and/or other rules governing Respondent's conduct; find that Respondent is subject to discipline pursuant to Rule 7(a), RLDE; and, to report its findings to the Supreme Court of South Carolina; c) The Commission recommend to the Court the imposition of one or more of the public sanctions as set out in Rule 7(b), RLDE, including but not limited to: Disbarment as provided in Rule 7(b)(1), RLDE; restitution to Page 13persons financially injured as permitted in Rule 7(b)(5); assessment against the Respondent of the cost of the proceedings in this matter as permitted in Rule 7(b)(6), RLDE; and any other sanction or requirement as the Supreme Court may determine is appropriate as provided in Rule 7(b)(10), RLDE. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL siTohwS. Nicholy JOHN S. NICHOLS Disciplinary Counsel Post Office Box 12159 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 (803) 734-2038 slJamie€, Wilkow Jamie E. Wilson Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Columbia, South Carolina Dated’ February 14, 2022 Page 14STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION ON BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT LAWYER CONDUCT IN THE MATTER OF: Richard A. Murdaugh, Respondent. Docket Number: AA- CLE -~003 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL'S MOTION TO DIMINISH Pursuant to Rule 14, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, ODC respectfully moves for an order diminishing the time prescribed by Rules 19-26, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR Specifically, ‘ODC requests the Commission shorten the deadlines for the filing of Respondent's answer to the formal charges and for any relevant discovery disclosures pursuant to Rules 23 and 25, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. ODC further requests that pursuant to Rule 26, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, the Commission on Lawyer Conduct schedule an expedited hearing as soon as practicable. ODC submits this request due to the extraordinary nature of the allegations concerning Respondent and the admissions of misconduct made in at least one (1) of Respondent's self-reports, in the media, and during court proceedings. WHEREFORE, ODC moves that the Commission issue an order diminishing the time prescribed by Rules 19-26, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and expediting the scheduling of a hearing pursuant to Rule 26, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR,OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL sl wi Jamie E. Wilson Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Post Office 12159 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 (803) 734-2038 Dated: February 14, 2022STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned employee of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, certifies that copies of the Notice of Filing of Formal Charges, Formal Charges, and Disciplinary Counsel's Motion to Diminish dated February 14, 2022, in the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent (ODC File Numbers 21-DE-L- 0830; 21-DE-L-0878; 21-DE-L-0946; 21-DE-L-0947; 21-DE-L-0981; and 21-DE-L-0994; CLC Docket Number: SR- CLL -~OOB _ ), the originals of which have been filed with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct, were served on Counsel for the Respondent on Ze brary 14, QDAQ _. by the undersigned depositing or causing the deposit of them along with a copy of this Certificate in the United States Mail, with sufficient postage affixed thereto, marked Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested, addressed as follows: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL James Mixon Griffin, Esquire Post Office Box 999 Columbia, SC 29202 Article Number: ) 10 AVM ANBSTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned employee of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, certifies that copies of the Notice of Filing of Formal Charges, Formal Charges, and Disciplinary Counsel's Motion to Diminish dated February 14, 2022, in the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent (ODC File Numbers 21-DE-L- 0830; 21-DE-L-0878; 21-DE-L-0946; 21-DE-L-0947; 21-DE-L-0981; and 21-DE-L-0994; CLC Docket Number: RA- CLL- OOS), the originals of which have been filed with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct, were served on Counsel for the Respondent on Feburary 14, ACAQ , by the undersigned depositing or causing the deposit of them along with a copy of this Certificate via electronic mail, addressed as follows: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL James Mixon Griffin, Esquire jariffin@ariffindavislaw.com Quptae torusyay The Supreme Court of South Carolina COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT Deborah S. McKeown 1220 Senate Stet, Sute 111 Commission Counsel Columba, South Carolina 29201 “Telephone: (803) 7342037 Fax (603) 734-0963 February 15, 2022 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL James Mixon Griffin, Esquire Griffin Davis Post Office Box 999 Columbia, SC 29202 (Via email to jariffin@ariffindavislaw.com) RE: _ In the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent Docket Number: 22-CLC-003 Dear Mr. Griffin: The Commission on Lawyer Conduct has received Disciplinary Counsel's Motion to Diminish in the above referenced matter. The Commission is requesting that you file a Return to this Motion on or before February 22, 2022. Please contact this office if you need an extension. Sincerely, Boe uw Barbara W. Hinson Legal Assistant BWH cc: Jamie E. Wilson, Esquire Assistant Disciplinary Counsel (Via email to jewilson@sccourts.org){WoO w STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT IN THE MATER OF: RecErvep { Richard A. Murdaugh, Respondent. FEB 2 2529 : Commis, i Lawyer GaN On Docket Number: 22-CLC-003 CONnDUgy RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO STAY AND RETURN TO MOTION TO DIMINISH Respondent Richard Alexander Murdaugh, by and through his undersigned counsel, responding to the Motion to Diminish, hereby moves to stay this action until the criminal proceedings involving the same allegations are terminated. Specifically, the State Grand Jury has returned fifteen (15) separate Indictments charging Respondent with seventy (70) separate crimes. See, SC State Grand Jury Indictment Numbers 2021-GS-47-27, 2021-GS-47-28, 2021-GS-47-29, 2021-GS-47-30, 2021-GS-47-31, 2021-GS-47-32, 2021-GS-47-33, 2021-GS-47-34, 2021-GS-47- 35, 2021-GS-47-36, 2021-GS-47-37, 2021-GS-47-38; 2022-GS-47-1, 2022-GS-2; and 2022-GS- 47-3, The Complaint in this action is based upon the same or similar factual allegations as alloged in the pending Indictments. In this situation, a stay of this civil administrative proceeding until the criminal proceeding is terminated is appropriate. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed, 153 (1936); Poston v. Home Insurance Co. N.Y., 191 S.C. 314, 4 S.E. 2d 261 (1939). In SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appealsexplained that a stay of a civil or administrative actions is warranted when a party is under indictment for a serious offense involving the same matter. The Court stated: ‘The Constitution ...does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose protective orders and conditions when the interests of justice seem to require such action, sometimes at the request of the prosecution, sometimes at the request of the defense(.)The court must make such determinations in the light of the particular circumstances of the cas Other than where there is specific evidence of agency bad faith or malicious governmental tactics, the strongest case for deferring civil proceedings until after completion of criminal proceedings is where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil or administrative action involving the same matter. The noncriminal proceeding, if not deferred, might undermine the party's Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination, expand rights of criminal discovery beyond the limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), expose the basis of the defense to the prosecution in advance of criminal trial, or otherwise prejudice the case. If delay of the noncriminal proceeding would not seriously injure the public interest, a court may be justified in deferring it...In some such cases, however, the courts may adequately protect the government and the private party by merely deferring civil discovery or entering an appropriate protective order. Citations omitted) Td, at 1375-1376 If stay is not granted and this administrative action is permitted to proceed, Respondent ‘Murdaugh’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination will be undermined and he will be exposed to discovery procedures that exceed the limitations of Rule 5, of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, there is not any urgency or need for this licensing action to proceed before the criminal case is resolved. Respondent's license to practice law has been suspended. He is currently being detained at the Richland County Detention Center, unable to post $7 Million bond. If he were to somehow be able to obtain pre-trial release on bond, Respondent would be required to abide by the terms of his bond, which includes complying with all state laws. ‘There is simply no reason to rush this case.Respectfully Submitted. ‘s/James M. Griffin James M. Griffin SC Bar No. 9995 GRIFFIN DAVIS LLC 4408 Forest Drive (29206) Post Office Box 999 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 (803) 744-0800 Jgriffin@griffindavislaw.com Columbia, SC February 22, 2022 Attorney for Richard Alexander MurdaughThe Supreme Court of South Carolina COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT Deborah 8. McKeown 1220 Senate Street, Sute 111 ‘Commission Counsel Columbia, South Carolina 26201 “Telephone: (808) 734-2037 Fx: (203) 734-0963 February 23, 2022 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Jamie E. Wilson, Esquire Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Office of Disciplinary Counsel Post Office Box 12159 Columbia, SC 29211 (Via email to jewilson@sccourts.org) RE: _ In the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent Docket Number: 22-CLC-003 Dear Ms. Wilson: This is to confirm that Disciplinary Counsel will be filing a Return to Respondent's Motion to Stay and a Reply to Respondent's Return to Motion to Diminish in the above referenced matter on or before March 3, 2022. Sincerely, Boar W wre Barbara W. Hinson Legal Assistant BWH cc: James Mixon Griffin, Esquire (Via email to jariffin@ariffindavislaw.com)BON The Supreme Court of South Carolina OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL John 8, Nichols Post Office Box 12159 Discptinary Counsel Columba, South Caroina 25211 amie E. ison Telephone: (803) 734-2038 ‘Assistant Disciplinary Couneel Fax (803) 734-1064 mal: ODGman@sccours.org March 3, 2022 PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL Deborah S. McKeown, Counsel RECEIVED . Commission on Lawyer Conduct 1220 Senate Street, Suite 111 Mar 03 2022 Columbia, SC 29201 Via Email Only: DMcKeown@sccourts.org COMMISSION ON BHinson@sccourts.org LAWYER CONDUCT Re: In the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent Docket Number: 22-CLC-003 Dear Ms. McKeown: | have enclosed the original copy of Disciplinary Counsel's Return to Respondent's Motion to Stay and Reply to Respondent's Return to Motion to Diminish Time to Perform, in the above-referenced matter. A copy of our certificate of service is also enclosed. Please file the original and return one (1) clocked copy to me. Thank you. Sincerely, sJamiet. Wilkow Jamie E. Wilson Enclosures ce: James Mixon Griffin, Esquire Counsel for Respondent Via Email Ont iffindavis! comThe Supreme Court of South Carolina OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL John, Nichols Post Office Box 12159 Discpinary Counsel Columbia, South Caroline 26211 Jamie E, ison ‘Telephone: (803) 734-2038 ‘Assistant Dscipinary Counsel Fax: (803) 794-1964 Emait ODGmall@sccours.og March 3, 2022 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL James Mixon Griffin, Esquire Post Office Box 999 Columbia, SC 29202 Via Email Only: jgriffin@ariffindavislaw.com RE: _ In the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent Docket Number: 22-CLC-003 Dear Mr. Griffin: Enclosed please find a copy of Disciplinary Counsel's Return to Respondent's Motion to Stay and Reply to Respondent's Return to Motion to Diminish Time to Perform, in the above-referenced matter. A copy of our certificate of service is also enclosed. Sincerely, slJamiet. Wihow Jamie E. Wilson Enclosure ec: Deborah S. McKeown, Counsel Commission on Lawyer Conduct Via Email Only: DMcKeown@sccourts.ora BHinson@sccourts.orgMAR G3 7022 MISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT aie Conner STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE MATTER OF: Richard A. Murdaugh, Respondent, Docket Number: 22-CLC-003 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL'S RETURN TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STAY AND. REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S RETURN TO MOTION TO DIMINISH TIME TO PERFORM The Office of Disciplinary Counsel to the Supreme Court of South Carolina respectfully submits the following response: 1. On February 14, 2022, ODC filed formal charges coupled with ODC's Motion to Diminish Time to Perform an Act Required by Rules 19-25 pursuant to Rule 14(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, in the above-referenced matter. 2. On February 22, 2022, Respondent filed a Return to ODC’s Motion to Diminish and also filed a Motion to Stay. 3. Respondent moves to stay the disciplinary proceedings until his criminal charges are resolved. Respondent cites Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed 153 (1936), Poston v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 191 S.C. 314, 4 S.E.2d 261 (1939), and SEC v. Dresser Indust, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1980), in support of his motion. 4, ODC opposes Respondent's Motion to Stay and requests the Commission deny the motion.5. Respondent asserts that according to Landis and Poston, it is appropriate to stay the disciplinary proceedings until Respondent's criminal matters are resolved because the allegations surrounding the disciplinary proceedings are factually similar to the allegations raised in his pending criminal indictments. 6. ODC disagrees with Respondent's assertion. The similarities between the factual allegations surrounding the respective proceedings are irrelevant, as the outcome of Respondent's criminal matters does not have any legal effect on the disciplinary proceedings brought against him. “The proof required differs in the two cases.” Poston v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 191 S.C. 314, 317, 4 S.E.2d 261, 262 (1939). “There is not ... any absolute rule by which civil actions are always continued as a matter of right to await the event of an indictment pending in relation to the subject matter of the suit." /d. Thus, an acquittal on all charges in the criminal matters would not control or otherwise impact the disciplinary matter, which is subject to a lower standard of proof. 7. Respondent suggests that “there is not any urgency or need for this licensing action to proceed before the criminal case is resolved.” However, ODC asserts that the allegations surrounding Respondent's disciplinary proceedings involve aggravating factors that prompt immediate action as a matter of public interest. 8. The Landis Court recognized the lower courts’ authority to stay proceedings in consideration of “economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Additionally, the Court stated that the best way to determine whether a stay of proceedings is warranted “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weighcompeting interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S, 248, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed 153 (1936). 9. Not only does Respondent have six (6) pending disciplinary matters, but each matter contains allegations that Respondent either misappropriated funds or participated in some other dishonest act to further a selfish motive. Furthermore, Respondent has continuously made admissions of misconduct in the media’ and on the record in court. Consequently, ODC’s main interest in moving forward with the disciplinary proceedings, without unreasonable delay, is its duty to uphold and promote the purpose of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement by “preserving the integrity of the legal profession and enhancing public confidence in the judicial system.” Rule 1, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. According to Landis, ODC’s interest in protecting the public should weigh heavily in a competing interests analysis. 10.0DC is also particularly concemed with the reasonableness of Respondent's request for a stay of an indefinite duration. The Poston Court addressed a time element in the following passage: It is pertinent to inquire from the record the duration of the time element as an indication of the extent that the delay resulting from the continuance will have upon the rights of the parties as well as upon the public interest. Should it appear in any case that the criminal charges were being pressed vigorously and without delay, that the proof was evident or the presumption great, that the State or the government joined in the suggestion of the motion for a continuance, and that a speedy trial was imminent, there can be no doubt that the duty to continue the civil case would weigh heavily upon the conscience and discretion of the Court below. ‘Although Respondents’ attomeys participated in most of the media coverage and spoke on Respondent's beehalf, “the] Court has consistently recognized an attorney Is the ‘alter-ego of his client’ and the attorney stands in the place of the client." Wiliams v. Willams, 335 8.C. 386, 391, 517 S.E.2d 689, 691 (1999).Poston v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 191 S.C. 314, 318, 4 S.E.2d 261, 262-263 (1939). Respondent's criminal case is extraordinary, to say the least, based on the multitude of charges alone. Respondent formerly described his criminal charges as “fifteen (15) separate indictments charging Respondent with seventy (70) separate crimes.” Further, it is apparent that Respondent's criminal investigation is ongoing; especially since Respondent initially surrendered himself to law enforcement in September of 2021, and has been served with additional warrants/indictments almost every month for the past four (4) months. At this juncture, there is no real indication as to how long it will take to dispose of Respondent's criminal cases. Unfortunately, Respondent's criminal cases could span over the course of an extensive period, and a stay for such an extended period of time could potentially infringe upon “the rights of the parties and upon the public interest.” Id. 11. Respondent further asserts that if the disciplinary proceedings are not stayed until the disposal of his criminal matters, his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination will be undermined and he will be exposed to discovery procedures that exceed the limitations of Rule 5, of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure. Respondent cites Dresser in support of this assertion. 12. Unlike the situation in Dresser, ODC has not issued a subpoena to Respondent. ODC does not intend to request production, seek an appearance under oath, or initiate any action that would require Respondent to provide any evidence against himself beyond the physical evidence that ODC already has in its possession and the voluntary statements his counsel offered in court and in the public. In fact,when Respondent submitted his responses to ODC’s notices of investigation (pursuant to Rule 19, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR), Respondent asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination without incident. In the event that ODC determines a need to request production, seek an appearance under oath, or initiate any action that would require Respondent to provide any evidence against himself; Respondent will undoubtedly retain his right to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as the burden of proof is on ODC. Cf. Rule 8.1, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, Comment [2] (‘This Rule (mandating cooperation in a disciplinary matter) is subject to the provisions of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions of state constitutions.” 13.While ODC has deferred disciplinary proceedings until a lawyer's corresponding criminal case is adjudicated, Respondent's situation is far from typical, and for the reasons stated above, prompt action is necessary. WHEREFORE, ODC moves that the Commission deny Respondent's request to stay the disciplinary proceedings and issue an order diminishing the time to perform prescribed by Rules 19-25, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and expediting the scheduling of a hearing pursuant to Rule 26, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL slTamie€, Wdkow Jamie E. Wilson Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Post Office 12159 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 (803) 734-2038Dated: March 3, 2022STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned employee of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, certifies that copies of Disciplinary Counsel's Return to Respondent's Motion to Stay and Reply to Respondent's Retum to Motion to Diminish Time to Perform dated March 3, 2022, in the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent (CLC Docket Number: 22-CLC-003), the originals of which have been filed with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct, were served on James Mixon Griffin, Esquire, Counsel for the Respondent, on March 3, 2022, by the undersigned depositing or causing the deposit of them along with a copy of this Certificate via electronic mail, addressed as follows: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL James Mixon Griffin, Esquire jgriffin@ariffindavislaw.com sllamiet. WisowThe Supreme Court of South Carolina COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT Deborsh S. McKeown 4220 Senate Street, Sute 111 ‘Commission Counsel Columbia, South Carolina 29201 “Telephone: (803) 734-2037 Fax; (803) 734-036, April 6, 2022 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL James Mixon Griffin, Esquire Griffin Davis Post Office Box 999 Columbia, SC 29202 (Via email also to jariffin@ariffindavislaw.com) Jamie E. Wilson, Esquire Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Office of Disciplinary Counsel Post Office Box 12159 Columbia, SC 29211 (Via email to ODCMail@sccourts.org; jewilson@sccourts.org) RE: In the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent Docket Number: 22-CLC-003 Dear Counsel: Enclosed please find the Order Denying Motions signed by the Chair of the Hearing Panel in the above referenced matter. Respondent's Answer will now be due on May 6, 2022. Sincerely, Barlow: ereer Barbara W. Hinson Legal Assistant BWH Enclosures“SUH STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT IN THE MATTER OF: Richard A. Murdaugh, Respondent Commission Docket Number: 22-CLC-003 ee ORDER DENYING MOTIONS — On February 14, 2022, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed Formal Charges against Richard A. Murdaugh (Respondent) in addition to a Motion to Diminish the times prescribed by Rules 19-26 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE), Rule 413, SCACR. On February 22, 2022, Respondent objected to ODC's Motion and filed a Motion to Stay the proceedings until the criminal proceedings against Respondent are resolved. ODC filed an objection to the Motion to Stay on March 3, 2022. After careful consideration, all Motions are denied. Respondent's Answer to the Formal Charges is due thirty days from the date of this Order. The Commission will Schedule a hearing in accordance with Rule 26(a), RLDE, ITIS SO ORDERED. immy R. King, Esq Chair of Hearing PanelHinson, Barbara Jaime Harmon Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:49 PM Hinson, Barbara Wilson, Jamie E,; Jim Griffin In the Matter of Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Respondent 22-CLC-003 2022-05-03_Answer to Formal Charges.final.pdf “ EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside the organization, Please exercise caution before clicking any links or opening attachments, *** Ms. Hinsoi Please find attached for filing Respondent’s Answer to Formal Charges in the above-referenced matter. Please advise if you need hard copies of this filing and | will have it hand-delivered tomorrow. Thank you. Jaime Harmon Legit Acsistont D caivrncoans fos rv oro oma 74m Mises Si Columbia, Sc 29208 P.O. Box 898 (28202) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated reciplent(s) named above and may contain work product and/or attorney-client information, which is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any review, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or copying of this message and/or attachments is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this e-mail message in errar, please notify us immediately at the telephone number listed above to arrange for the return and/or deletion of the original message. Thank you for your cooperationSTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT RECEIVE) Richard A. Murdaugh, Respondent. MAY 03 2022 IN THE MATER OF: ae COMMISSION ON Docket Number: 22-CLC-003 LAWYER CONDUCT, RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO FORMAL CHARGES Respondent Richard A. Murdaugh, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the Formal Charges brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel: 1. Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations of paragraphs 1 through 3. 2. Respondent hereby asserts is priv -ge against self-incrimination guaranteed by the South Carolina Constitution and the United States Constitution in response to the allegations of paragraphs 4-11. 3, Respondent does not contest the sanction of Disbarment as provided in Rule 7(b)(1). James M. Griffin (SC Bar No. 9995) GRIFFIN DAVIS LLC 4408 Forest Drive (29206) Post Office Box 999 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 (803) 744-0800 Jgviffin@griffindavistaw.com Attorney for Richard Alexander Murdaugh May 3, 2022