Y’all need to read the US and SC Constitutions. A state constitutional amendment is final unless there was some procedural violation or it was somehow preempted by federal law. Federal law is controlled by the US Constitution and there is NOTHING in the US Constitution that would prohibit such an amendment as is being discussed in the post. The fact that “separation of powers” has remained a stalwart in all states of the union is a function of its success and NOT because it is somehow required by a magical document carved in stone.

The proposed amendment would simply be a check and not some sort of steamrolling of one particular branch of government. This executive agency would not be deciding cases! Even if they were, there is noting that would prevent the people from choosing such a form of government unless the agency action ran afoul of the 14th amendment or some other US Constitutional provision or Amendment.

Again, please cite me one case or constitutional provision that supports your proposition. I personally don’t think this amendment is the way to go, but to argue that it would be unconstitutional is just plain wrong.

Somehow, I believe that some of my colleagues are confusing a Constitutional Amendment with a legislative act. They are separate and distinct in that an Amendment requires the ratification by the people and is not then an Act of a legislature. No conflict between the branches in that respect.

As a lawyer who has been the target of an Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigation, I can say from experience that the current rules offer no due process…the ODC does what it wants and when it wants to do it. And the ODC itself is pretty much inbred…friends of the Court and brothers and sisters of other employees work there, outsiders don’t last very long, so if you piss one of them off, don’t expect any fairness from the others. Have any of them actually ever practiced law in a real office with real clients?

But anyway, here’s how it plays out…if you refuse to admit to unfounded and untrue allegations and demand a hearing, they can put you on interim suspension and then give you a hearing later…21 months later in my case. They have no time limits…so if you don’t just back down and sign what they want, your career can be ended for two years (or longer) for no reason. “Due process takes time,” I was told.

There is no due process, yet there is nothing you can do about it. Unless you happen to be independently wealthy, you have to play along. I’m sure the reason many of the consent agreements for discipline are signed by lawyers is just to end the process…otherwise the accused could be looking at financial ruin. And if you are willing to admit to only some of the charges against you and want to deny others, well too bad…you either sign an agreement admitting to all charges, or wait for a hearing when they get around to it…your choice.

Each state has a different way of regulating lawyers, and they all lead to their Supreme Courts, but they don’t necessarily start there. Many have revolving members on independent panels (in large enough states ususally in different districts so a complaint can be handled away from the location of the accused lawyer’s practice) who investigate and determine a sanction, and if you wish to appeal, only then does it go to the Court for a final review.

And most states at least have time guidelines…if the charges can’t be substantiated within a certain time frame (270 days seems to be an often used limit, but some are as long as 18 months), then they get dismissed. That seems to make sense, and if we did that in South Carolina, at least the process would seem fair (although since it is South Carolina, that might still be questionable). The ABA has rules for discipline that many states have adopted, maybe that would be a good starting point for the Court to look at here. But I won’t hold my breath.

Anyway, what I do know is this…under the current system you are guilty before you are proven innocent. And if you do happen to be innocent, don’t expect an apology…the ODC is too busy moving on to the next unlucky victim to worry about that.

An amendment BY DEFINITION conflicts with the document it amends. When freed slaves were given the right to vote, that conflicted with the US Constitution. Ditto women. When the voting age was lowered, that conflicted with the US Constitution. Do I need to track through all of the amendments?

The fact that the concept being amended is more amorphous (ie, your “separation of powers” argument) doesn’t make any difference.

It’s, um, an AMENDMENT.