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 92-07
Rule 4.2 prohibits contact by a lawyer with another represented party without consent of the other counsel only when the lawyer contacts the other party in the course of representing a client.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-06
Since the attorneys have no financial interest in the cases at issue of the borrowers, Rule 1.8 and 7.2 have not been violated. Assuming the clients consent and do not withdraw consent at the time the personal injury case is settled, the attorneys may honor the assignments to the loan company, and may refer clients to the lender.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-05
A contingent fee is appropriate in this case because the payment of the fee is not contingent upon the obtaining of the divorce or the original award of the specific amount of the property division. The over-all fee must still be reasonable as set out in Rule 1.5(a).
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-04
There is a possible ethical issue as to whether the public will be properly informed of the intended use of the information they provide. A lawyer must not engage in conduct intended to mislead the public.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-03
A lawyer who serves as attorney for one or more parties, including the buyer or lender, at a real estate closing normally may serve also as title insurance agent.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-02
There is no prohibition of the attorney undertaking such representation, provided that the babysitter's interests are not materially adverse to the interests of the former client and provided that the attorney does not use any information relating to the former representation to the disadvantage of the former client.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-01
An attorney is negotiating settlement in a domestic case, and he has information that opposing counsel's client has committed a criminal offense.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-38
Subject to the normal requirements that a fee must be reasonable, there is no prohibition of the attorney's collecting a fee from both clients if he is ethically allowed to represent both clients.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-37
Because Attorney A and B are not members of the same law firm, and do not present themselves to the public as members of the same law firm, the ethical rules do not prevent Attorney A from suing Attorney B's client.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-36
If the local attorney is representing the individual seeking to create a living trust, the proposed arrangement violates the restrictions of Rule 1.8 (f) that require an attorney when being compensated by a third party to maintain his professional independence and Rule 5.4 (c) which prohibits an attorney from allowing a third party who recommends, employs or pays the lawyer to regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering services to another.