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 91-25
In a case in which a plaintiff is contractually obligated to reimburse his/her health insurance provider from any recovery from a negligent third-party, it should not be unethical for the attorney to represent the health insurance provider to recover medical expenses on a contingency fee basis from the third party in conjunction with the plaintiff's case against the third party if the attorney complies with the provisions of Rule 1.7 and 1.8 by making full disclosure of all implications to both the plaintiff and health insurance provider and obtaining their consent to this representation.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-24
Lawyer's ability to handle the second matter against C depends upon whether Lawyer's representation of the partnership might reasonably be perceived by the general partner as also representing the general partner's interest.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-23
Jack can represent a co-defendant of Jill's client, provided that Jack discloses to his client the fact that Jill represents the co-defendant, he explains the possible consequences of this situation, and he obtains his client's consent to the representation after such disclosure.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-21
The Rules of Professional Conduct do not require a law firm to establish a separate entity for the purpose of acting in the capacity of a title insurance agency as long as the method of operation of the law firm as a title insurance agency does not otherwise violate the rules.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-20
The proposed amendment to the partnership agreement that would prohibit withdrawing partners from receiving deferred compensation for services rendered before their withdrawal regardless of whether those partners continue to practice law does not appear to violate Rule 5.6 (a).
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-19
It is no violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for a public defender in one county to represent criminal defendants in other counties.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-18
The proposed use of the letterhead that would imply that the attorney is independent outside counsel is a violation of Rule 7.1 and Rule 7.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-17
The lawyer may not participate in any matter in which he/she participated personally and substantially as an Assistant Solicitor unless under applicable law no one is, or by lawful delegation may be, authorized to act in his/her stead in the matter.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-16
The Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit the county council member from representing clients in Magistrate Court, but opinions of the State Ethics Commission should be reviewed.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-15
Since the attorneys have no financial interest in the loan company and merely represented the lender in establishing its business, the acts of the loan company cannot be attributed to the attorneys.