The South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee provides the full text of all ethics opinions since 1990 online. To find the opinion you need, simply use the search form below.
The opinions in this database contain the advice of the Committee based on the state of the law at the time of each opinion. Opinions are not updated to reflect changes in the Rules of Professional Conduct, more recent opinions, or other law. Further research may be necessary. Earlier opinions are available through vLex Fastcase.
Frequently Asked Questions are also available.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 08-05
To the extent that payment of witness fees for representing a client from another may be legally permissible, there would appear to be no ethical prohibition upon such payment being made under the facts presented provided the provisions of Rules 1.8(e), 1.8(f) and 3.4 (b) are followed.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 08-04
A lawyer may serve as a guardian ad litem and legal counsel for the guardian ad litem but must exercise caution.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 08-03
The law firm may act as escrow agent and deposit funds in interest-bearing non-IOLTA accounts based on the facts presented.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 08-02
1) Lawyer may ethically enter into a fee-payment arrangement with clients and a trade credit account processor (TCAP) and 2) Lawyer, may sell existing accounts receivable to a TCAP, provided informed consent is obtained from the client.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 08-01
Rule 1.16(c), South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (SCRPC), requires a lawyer to have permission of the appropriate tribunal before terminating representation. Until such relief is granted, the lawyer is obligated to provide competent representation.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 07-10
Subject to future clarification from the Supreme Court, the Committee believes the term “bank” in Rule 1.15(f) should be read to include credit unions and other financial institutions as defined in IOLTA Rule 412(a)(4).
Ethics Advisory Opinion 07-09 (1)
CAUTION: In In re Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar, 386 S.C. 133, 140 687 S.E.2d 41, 45 (2009), the Court held that this opinion (07-09), did not present a correct interpretation of Rule 7.3(a). Yes. Personal delivery of the coupons violates the Rule 7.3(a) prohibition against in-person solicitation. Although the agent or loan originator, not the lawyer, has in-person contact with the prospective client under these facts, a lawyer cannot do indirectly what she is prohibited from doing directly. Also, the coupons likely violate the written solicitation requirements of Rule 7.3(d).
Ethics Advisory Opinion 07-08
Lawyer may participate in Company’s advertisement as long as Lawyer pays the reasonable costs of the advertisement and ensures that the advertisement complies with the S.C. Rules of Professional Conduct’s provisions on lawyer advertising and communications.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 07-07
Rule 3.7(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct does not prohibit Lawyer in this arrangement from continued representation because Lawyer’s “testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case.”
Ethics Advisory Opinion 07-06
There is no violation of Rule 4.5 of Professional Conduct, SCACR, Rule 407, for Lawyer to prepare and send out a collection notice letter on Client's behalf pursuant to S.C. Code §34-11-70.