 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Richland County Magistrate Stocker2/7/2005
Submitted January 4, 2005
PUBLIC REPRIMAND; SUSPENSION
In this judicial disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into two Agreements for Discipline by Consent pursuant to Rule 21, RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR. In Agreement #1, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of a letter of caution, admonition, or public reprimand pursuant to Rule 7(b), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR. We accept Agreement #1 and impose a public reprimand. In Agreement #2, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of an admonition, public reprimand, or a definite suspension not to exceed thirty (30) days pursuant to Rule 7(b), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR. We accept Agreement #2 and impose a definite suspension of thirty (30) days. The facts as set forth in the Agreements are as follows.
FACTS
AGREEMENT #1
I.
Respondent is a Richland County Magistrate. Plaintiff A filed a civil complaint in respondent's magisterial office on January 12, 2001. She alleges she was advised by the receptionist at respondent's office that trial would be in about three or four weeks and that she would be notified by mail.
Plaintiff A alleges she contacted respondent's office in mid-February and was told the defendant had been served on January 19, 2001, that a hearing would be scheduled within two weeks, and that she would receive a letter soon. Plaintiff A alleges she called respondent's office in March and left a message that was not returned. Plaintiff A alleges she called respondent's office again in April, was told respondent was busy "filling in for other judges downtown," that he would be back to his regular schedule soon, and she would hear something shortly.
On August 29, 2001, Plaintiff A complained by letter to the Chief Magistrate about respondent's failure to set the matter for trial and respondent's lack of response to her inquiries. In the letter, respondent asked to transfer the matter to another magistrate or for a refund of her $55.00 filing fee if transfer to another magistrate could not be arranged.
The Chief Magistrate contacted respondent about Plaintiff A. Respondent discovered that Plaintiff A's complaint was inadvertently marked by court staff to indicate that the defendant requested a jury trial and the complaint was thereafter placed in the jury trial cabinet to await its turn for placement on the jury docket. Respondent also represents that, at that time, cases placed on the jury roster generally took eighteen months to reach a trial, which was the cause of the delay in Plaintiff A's case.
Respondent further explains that none of his office staff remember receiving any inquiries from Plaintiff A and that he was not made aware of Plaintiff A's communications, if any were made as she alleges. While respondent cannot confirm the representations made by Plaintiff A, for purposes of Agreement #1, they are not contested.
Plaintiff A's matter was subsequently assigned to another magistrate and has been resolved.
II.
In October 2000, Ronald L. Hall, Esquire, filed a complaint in respondent's court on behalf of Plaintiff B against Defendant B concerning a $2,250.00 check Defendant B wrote to a third party and which the third party subsequently signed over to Plaintiff B. According to the complaint, the check was returned for insufficient funds.
By January 2001, Mr. Hall had not heard anything further about the matter and contacted respondent's office by letter dated January 8, 2001, but received no response. In February 2001, Mr. Hall was informed that the file may have been misplaced in re
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|