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 04-04
The lawyer may not be prevented from dual representation due to the mere happenstance of the lawyer’s learning of crucial evidence from one of his clients, so long as neither client objects to the use of the information, thereby creating no conflict of interest under Rule 1.7.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 04-03
Provided that the fee paid to Lawyer by NPO is not a percentage of the amount of the gift made by the donor/client to the NPO and is reasonable under Rule 1.5(a), Lawyer could handle the transaction provided that the lawyer makes full disclosure to the donor/client of the relationship with the NPO (including the fee payment structure with the NPO), obtains the donor/client’s written permission to proceed, and fully protects the donor/client’s confidentiality.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 04-02
Attorney may disclose to the appropriate authorities Lender's expressed intention to conduct closings in violation of South Carolina law. However, Attorney is not ethically required to do so.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 04-01
The Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit Attorney A from participating in a closing where Attorney A represents the lender and the closing documents were not prepared by Attorney A but were prepared by or under the supervision of an attorney licensed to practice in South Carolina.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 03-12
While most duties of a lawyer to the client attach only after an attorney-client relationship comes into existence, the duties under Rule 1.6 (a) may attach when a lawyer and potential client are considering whether to form an attorney-client relationship.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 03-11
Pursuant to Rule 3.8(d), SCRPC, a prosecutor is required to reveal that an officer has failed to disclose the truth to his superior officer during an official department investigation.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 03-10
A lawyer may include in the firm's trade name an area of practice in which the lawyer is not certified under Rule 408, SCACR, provided that the firm does, in fact, concentrate its practice in the area specified.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 03-09
The receipt of the “brokerage fees” under proposed plan does not constitute unethical fee sharing per se but nonetheless raises disclosure issues and reasonable fee issues that need to be addressed.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 03-07
Rule 5.4 is not violated by the foregoing proposed agreement. The foregoing agreement is ethical provided there is proper supervision of title matters by the law firm, no excessive compensation to the law firm in violation of Rule 1.5, and appropriate disclosure to both the local real estate company and the client-customers under Rules 1.4, 1.7, 1.8(f) and 2.2.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 03-06
A suspended or disbarred attorney may not sell his or her practice.