In the Matter of Tiffany Jane' Brown ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                    THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    In The Supreme Court
    In the Matter of Tiffany Jane' Brown, Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2023-000205
    Opinion No. 28139
    Submitted February 23, 2023 – Filed March 15, 2023
    PUBLIC REPRIMAND
    Interim Disciplinary Counsel Ericka M. Williams and
    Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Phylicia Y. Coleman,
    both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
    Tiffany Jane' Brown, of Florence, Pro Se.
    PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office
    of Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent
    (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary
    Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court
    Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct and consents
    to the imposition of a confidential admonition, a public reprimand, or a definite
    suspension of up to six months. We accept the Agreement and issue a public
    reprimand.
    I.
    On July 12-13, 2022, during a trial before a family court judge (Judge),
    Respondent's former client testified that her signature was not the signature
    purportedly sworn by notary seal on the financial declaration filed with the court.
    After the trial, Judge reviewed several cases currently pending before the court
    wherein Respondent was counsel of record. Of the cases reviewed, Judge
    observed at least four documents attested by either Respondent or her non-lawyer
    employee as notary publics that appeared to be fraudulent. Thereafter, Judge met
    with Respondent and presented the documents of concern. Respondent was candid
    and remorseful about her actions once approached by Judge.
    Respondent promptly self-reported the misconduct, admitting that on more than
    one occasion, she signed legal documents on behalf of her client(s) and notarized
    the signature purportedly attesting that her client(s) signed the document.
    Respondent also admitted that she allowed her employee, a non-lawyer under her
    direct supervision, to notarize Respondent's signature on behalf of her client(s).
    Opposing counsel submitted a complaint about the same misconduct. In addition,
    opposing counsel reported three documents in another case in which Respondent
    allowed her assistant to notarize signatures that were not of the client.
    II.
    Respondent admits her conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of
    Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting false
    statements of fact to a tribunal); Rule 4.1(a) (prohibiting false statements of fact to
    a third person); Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting violations of the Rules of Professional
    Conduct); Rule 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty); Rule 8.4(e)
    (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
    Respondent also admits her misconduct is grounds for discipline under the
    following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule
    7(a)(1) (providing a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is a ground for
    discipline); and Rule 7(a)(5) (providing conduct tending to bring the legal
    profession into disrepute is a ground for discipline).
    In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct, consents to the imposition of a
    confidential admonition, a public reprimand, or a definite suspension of up to six
    months, and agrees to pay costs. In her affidavit in mitigation, Respondent
    acknowledges her wrongdoing, explains that she has learned an important lesson,
    and notes that since this incident, she has attended several educational programs
    and availed herself of various South Carolina Bar resources for new attorneys.
    Respondent also acknowledges the wrongfulness of her conduct and emphasizes
    that she never intended to "mislead, misrepresent, or defraud anyone."
    III.
    We find Respondent's misconduct warrants a public reprimand. See, e.g., In re
    Robinson, 
    393 S.C. 364
    , 
    713 S.E.2d 294
     (2011) (publicly reprimanding a lawyer
    for filing affidavits of witnesses with the lawyer's name as notary when the
    witnesses did not sign the affidavits). Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and
    publicly reprimand Respondent for her misconduct. Within thirty days,
    Respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this
    matter by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Commission on Lawyer
    Conduct.
    PUBLIC REPRIMAND.
    BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 28139

Filed Date: 3/15/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/15/2023