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 Fastcase.

A trained Bar lawyer is available to answer ethics questions, provide analysis of the Rules of Professional Conduct as applied to certain facts and make recommendations regarding risk management, while leaving final decisions up to the Bar member. All conversations are confidential and protected by Rule 8.3(d) of the S.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. Call (803) 799-6653, ext. 178 or email


Showing All Opinions

  • Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-01

    May Lawyer act as a property and casualty insurance agent for a local insurance agency selling automobile insurance for insurance carriers Lawyer may submit claims against in Lawyer’s law firm? Yes, provided Lawyer ensures that (1) he does not perform legal work as an insurance agent, and (2) his representation of clients against insurance carriers with which he works as an insurance agent is not materially limited by his responsibilities as an agent.

  • Ethics Advisory Opinion 17-02

    Yes, the lawyer may accept and advertise such a designation or accolade, and utilize any “badges,” symbols, or other marks authorized by the designating entity in situations meeting certain criteria.

  • Ethics Advisory Opinion 17-01

    A post office address qualifies as an “office address" for purposes of Rule 7.2(d) provided the post office address is on file as the lawyer’s current mailing address in the lawyer’s listing in the AIS.

  • Ethics Advisory Opinion 16-06

    The arrangement described herein violates the prohibition of sharing fees with a non-lawyer as described in Rule 5.4(a). In the alternative, assuming, for the purposes of this question only, that the arrangement does not violate Rule 5.4(a), the arrangement would violate the Rule 7.2(c) prohibition of paying for a referral and is not saved by the exceptions found in Rule 7.2(c)(1), (2), or (3).

  • Ethics Advisory Opinion 16-05

    Because S, T and U actually practice law together, the proposed firm name is not misleading and does not violate the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.