Find Legal Information

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

In the Matter of A. R.

Grant Morehouse, Respondent.

Opinion No. 24781

Submitted March 10, 1998 - Filed April 13, 1998

DISBARRED

C. Russell Keep, III, of Hilton Head Island, for

respondent.

James G. Bogle, Jr., of Columbia, for Disciplinary

Counsel.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter,

respondent and disciplinary counsel have entered into an agreement under

Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In the agreement, respondent admits

misconduct and consents to be disbarred from the practice of law.

Respondent has requested that the disbarment be made retroactive to the

date of his Interim Suspension, April 3, 1997.1 We accept the agreement

for disbarment, but decline to make the disbarment retroactive.

FACTS

On January 15, 1997, respondent and three co-defendants were

indicted in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina,

Beaufort Division, on 100 counts of wire fraud and money laundering in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343, and 1956. Respondent entered into a

plea agreement with the United States Attorney, whereby respondent

agreed to plead guilty to fifty-five counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18

1997 (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 10).

p.14

U.S.C. § 1343. In exchange for the plea, the United States Attorney

agreed to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment against

respondent.

Respondent admits that by his conduct, he has violated the

Rules of Professional Conduct by committing a criminal act which reflects

on his honesty, and engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude,

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation which was prejudicial to

the administration of justice. Rule 8.4 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), Rule 407,

SCACR. Respondent further admits that he has violated several of the

Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR, including

Rule 7(a)(1), violation of a Rule of Professional Conduct; Rule 7(a)(4),

conviction of a crime of moral turpitude or a serious crime; Rule 7(a)(5),

conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the

courts or legal profession into disrepute or conduct demonstrating an

unfitness to practice law; and Rule 7(a)(6), a violation of the oath of office

taken upon admission to practice law in this state.

In our opinion, respondent's misconduct warrants disbarment

from the practice of law. Accordingly, respondent is disbarred, effective on

the date of this opinion. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion,

respondent shall file the affidavit required by Rule 30(g), RLDE, Rule 413,

SCACR.

DISBARRED

p.15