UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-41
In each of several years prior to death, Grantor transferred real estate by deed to each of his three (3) children and nine (9) grandchildren, for a total of twelve (12) gifts each year. One or more of the grandchildren are attorneys, who had no confidential, fiduciary or attorney-client relationship with the Grantor, and were not aware of the gifts until after the death of the Grantor. The children of the Grantor have stated that the Grantor's intent was for each grandchild to re-convey his or her interest in the real estate to his or her parent, the child of the Grantor. This intent does not appear in any other deeds, nor in any written document.
Questions:
1. Is an attorney-grandchild under an ethical duty to convey his interest in the property to his parent?
2. Is there any Rule of Professional Conduct which would prohibit an attorney-grandchild from conveying his interest in the property to his parent?
Summary:
There is apparently no ethical rule which would require any attorney-grandchild to fulfill the unwritten intent of his grandparent to re-convey property given to him by the grandparent. Neither does there appear to be any ethical rule which would prohibit him from conveying the property to his parent.
Opinion:
Although the facts present interesting legal questions, the attorney-grandchild has no fiduciary, confidential, or attorney- -client relationship with the Grantor nor, apparently, with any other grandchildren of children of the Grantor. Therefore, the only ethical rules likely to be applicable are those involving transactions with persons other than clients. These generally involve: an attorneys' duty to be truthful in his statements to others, restrictions on an attorney's communications with persons represented by counsel, rules for dealing with unrepresented persons, respect for the rights of third persons, and a prohibition against threatening criminal prosecution to obtain an advantage in civil matter. None of these rules appear to be other than generally applicable to the facts stated above, and an attorney-grandchild should be aware to these rules in dealing with other parties. There is apparently no ethical rule which would require any attorney grandchild to fulfill the unwritten intent of his grandparent to reconvey to his parent, property given to him by the grandparent, nor any ethical rule which would prohibit him from conveying the property to his parent.