Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
24846 - In the Matter of Glee

Davis Adv. Sh. No. XX
S.E. 2d

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

In the Matter of Willi J.

Glee, Respondent.

Opinion No. 24846

Submitted September 15, 1998 - Filed October 26, 1998

DISBARRED

Henry B. Richardson, Jr., of Columbia, Disciplinary Counsel.

Willie J. Glee, of Charleston, pro se.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent

and disciplinary counsel have entered into an agreement under Rule 21 of the

Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413,

SCACR. In the agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to be

disbarred from the practice of law. We accept the agreement and disbar

respondent.





Respondent stipulated to the following facts:





Flagnor Mouzon Probate Proceeding





Respondent represented Anna C. Mouzon in the probate of her

husband's estate from March 20, 1990, until her death on October 19, 1994. In

connection with this proceeding, respondent received and deposited into his law

office trust account three certified checks made to the order of himself and Anna

Mouzon totaling $11,5071, $9,590.70 of which respondent was to disburse to the

decedent's heirs.





By April 1994, heirs of the Mouzon estate were being represented

by Mr. Jack Brickman. By letter dated April 15, 1994, respondent represented

p.21


IN THE MATTER OF GLEE





to Brickman that he enclosed a check for $9,590.70. Neither the letter nor

check were ever mailed.





By order dated September 25, 1996, the probate court ordered

respondent to produce an accounting of all monies related to the Mouzon probate

proceeding. Respondent did not comply. Subsequently, by letter dated October

24, 1996, respondent informed the probate court that he had transmitted to

Brickman a check in the amount of $9,590.70. Respondent had not done so.





On April 3, 1998, respondent issued check # 2035 from his law

office trust account in the amount of $9,590.70 to Brickman. On that date, the

trust account balance totaled $4,277.22. The check was not honored due to

insufficient funds. Respondent admits that he converted the funds for purposes

other than which were intended or authorized, and that he issued the check

knowing there were insufficient funds in the account.





On June 17, 1998, the probate court issued a rule to show cause for

contempt and respondent failed to appear. By order dated July 16, 1998,

respondent was held in contempt of court. In response to a bench warrant

issued by the court, respondent was arrested.





From the time respondent deposited the Mouzon trust account funds

in September 1993, the account balance repeatedly slipped below the requisite

minimum of $9,590.70 to amounts as low as $4.22. The money owed the

Mouzon estate heirs was finally paid in full between July 24, 1998, and July 31,

1998.





Other Trust Account Improprieties





With respect to fifteen other trust account checks written to the

order of respondent, respondent failed to keep specific client trust account

balance information. Respondent neglected to list client names with

corresponding account deposits, designate file numbers, or keep client ledger

sheets. As a result, respondent is unable to identify what amounts are owed to

whom.





Conclusion





Respondent has violated numerous provisions of the Rules of

Professional Conduct contained in Rule 407, SCACR. Respondent converted

client funds for his own purposes. Rule 1.15. He failed to provide competent

representation. Rule 1.1. He failed to comply with demand for payment. Rule

1.2. He failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. Rule 1.3. He

failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the case and

respond to requests. Rule 1.4. He failed to surrender and release trust account

funds owed upon termination of the attorney/client relationship. Rule 1.16. He

p. 22


IN THE MATTER OF GLEE





was dilatory in winding up and closing the probate action. Rule 3.2. He

engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in

violation of Rule 8.4 (a),(d),&(e). Respondent has clearly demonstrated his

unfitness to practice law and his conduct is grounds for disbarment under Rule

7(a)(1), (5), (6) and (7) of the RLDE.





Accordingly, we disbar respondent from the practice of law. Within

fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file an affidavit with

the Clerk of Court showing that he has complied with Rule 30(g) of Rule 413,

SCACR.





DISBARRED.

p.23