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 12-05
An arrangement where (1) attorney works for a Texas-based law firm as the sole employee of the firm’s Columbia, South Carolina office, (2) the IOLTA account will be located in Virginia, where Partner is based and where the law firm’s accounting office is located, and (3) Partner will have sole ability to write checks drawn on the South Carolina IOLTA account appears to comply with Rule 1.15 and Rule 412, but it does not comply with Rule 417, SCACR, as recently amended.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 12-03
If a question-answering website complies with all communications and advertising rules, a lawyer may participate in such a program, but with specific caution against inadvertently forming an attorney-client relationship by offering more than basic information of general applicability.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 12-02
A contingent fee, payable to a lawyer as a partial ownership interest in real property with the client, may be permissible subject to the lawyer’s compliance with: Rule 1.8(a), regarding entering into business transactions with a client; Rule 1.8(i), regarding acquisition of a proprietary interest in the subject matter of litigation; Rule 1.5(c), regarding contingency fees; and Rule 1.5’s reasonableness requirement.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 12-01
Absent an agreement to the contrary, a law firm is not authorized to use remaining funds received as a retainer in an initial matter to cover a portion of an amount due on a second matter.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 11-06
In a standard real estate closing, absent additional facts and circumstances, a buyer’s lawyer preparing a settlement statement may add a reasonable payoff handling fee to the Seller’s side of the statement even though the lawyer has not entered into a fee arrangement nor has an attorney/client relationship with the seller.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 11-05
The use of “daily deal” websites to sell vouchers to be redeemed for discounted legal services does not violate the Rule 5.4(a) prohibition on sharing of legal fees, but the attorney is cautioned that the use of such websites must be in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 and could lead to violations of several other rules if logistical issues are not appropriately addressed.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 11-04
A federal investigator who is also a lawyer may directly contact a target of an investigation, even if the target is represented by counsel.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 11-03
The proposed program does not violate the Rules, provided Lawyer does not allow the charitable organization to influence his independent judgment.
ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION 11-02
An Attorney may not represent criminal defendants in the same county in which he acts as county attorney if he provides any legal advice to the CSO concerning criminal matters. If Attorney does not provide any legal advice to the CSO concerning criminal matters, representation of criminal defendants in that county is permissible.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 11-01
Husband, a licensed attorney, and his wife have filed a lawsuit. Husband is pro se. Husband should be mindful of Rule 4.2, governing communications with persons represented by counsel.