South Carolina Legal Ethics
1.3:100 Comparative Analysis of South Carolina Rule
• Primary SC References: SC
Rule 1.3. See also SC Rule 1.1
(competence)
• Background References: ABA
Model Rule 1.3, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary:
1.3:101 Model Rule Comparison
South Carolina Rule 1.3 and its comments are identical to Model Rule 1.3.
1.3:102 Model Code Comparison
Rule 1.3 did not have an exact counterpart in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
1.3:200 Diligence and "Zeal"
• Primary SC References: SC
Rule 1.3
• Background References: ABA
Model Rule 1.3, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 31:401, ALI-LGL § 28, Wolfram
§ 10.3
1.3:300 Promptness
• Primary SC References: SC
Rule 1.3
• Background References: ABA
Model Rule 1.3, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 31:401, ALI-LGL § 28, Wolfram
§ 10.3
The failure to pursue diligently the objectives of the client is a frequent ground for lawyer discipline. The range of possible misconduct constituting a breach of the duty of diligence extends from neglect on the part of the lawyer to a failure to pursue a matter because of a mistaken belief by the lawyer that the representation had ended. Neglect is not defined by any absolute passage of time. Lawyers have been disciplined for neglecting matters for as long as eight years, In re Davis, 276 S.C. 532, 280 S.E.2d 644 (1981), or for as short a time as two months, In re Ballard, 298 S.C. 324, 380 S.E.2d 813 (1989). The client is often prejudiced because of the lawyer's delay, such as by dismissal of the client's case, see In re Craig, 317 S.C. 295, 454 S.E.2d 314 (1995), but a lawyer can be disciplined for neglect even in the absence of clear prejudice. See In re Jones, 313 S.C. 9, 437 S.E.2d 10 (1993); In re Burgess, 279 S.C. 44, 302 S.E.2d 325 (1983). Discipline for lack of diligence or neglect has been imposed in both litigation and transactional matters. E.g. In re Rast, 337 S.C. 588, 524 S.E.2d 619 (1999) (general failure to pursue litigation matter); In re Thompson, 310 S.C. 461, 427 S.E.2d 644 (1993) (lawyer failed to pay taxes as part of real estate representation and neglected for more than a year to remind client to return document needed to obtain title insurance).