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 01-02
Rule 1.15 does not provide the physician with a lien against the client’s recovery where there is otherwise no valid lien or assignment. The Rules of Professional Conduct do not create substantive rights.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 01-01
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, Attorney may contact Former Employee of Corporation X so long as Former Employee is not represented by counsel and Attorney fully discloses the nature of the matter and purpose of the contact.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-18
A lawyer may not undertake, without consent, any representation that would create a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7 with an existing client or with the lawyer's own interests or a conflict of interest under Rule 1.9 with a former client.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-17
This Committee has on numerous occasions dealt with the issue of who a lawyer represents at closings of real estate transactions. The Committee has advised that a lawyer may represent multiple parties at real estate closings provided the lawyer complies with the requirements of Rule 1.7(b).
Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-16
Assuming that Firm's debt management services do not amount to the unauthorized practice of law, Attorney may ethically receive a fee from Firm for referring clients who Attorney decides would not be good candidates for bankruptcy and who may benefit from debt management.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-15
Although there is no strict ethical prohibition from contacting a former juror after that juror has been dismissed from the jury venire, such a practice is strongly discouraged and the lawyer who engages in such contact "does so at his own peril."
Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-14
Would it be an ethical violation for lawyer to retain an investigator to make visual observations of prospective jurors' homes and cars without making any contact with the prospective jurors?
Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-13
When merger discussions reach a formal stage, the lawyers' interests in the merger and in staying on good terms with each other may materially limit the lawyers' representation of their clients.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-12
Whether an attorney-client relationship was created between Lawyer and B is a question of law, and the Committee does not offer an opinion on that issue. If the court concluded that no attorney-client relationship was created with B and if B did not disclose any material confidences to Lawyer, then no conflict would appear to have been created by Lawyer's meeting with B.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-11
Rule 5.6(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct provides that "A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making: (a) a partnership or employment agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement." The non-compete agreement described would violate the clear provisions of Rule 5.6.