The South Carolina agency responsible for handling complaints against attorneys has reportedly received a packet of information detailing numerous allegations against Lane Jefferies – the Charleston-based lawyer who pretty much had the worst week ever on our news outlet last week.
The S.C. supreme court office of disciplinary counsel (ODC) would be in charge of reviewing these allegations and determining what – if any – disciplinary action Jefferies may face in the event the findings are corroborated.
Is that a good thing?
Well, as this news outlet has previously noted the ODC is “among the most maddeningly subjective entities in all of state government” and has been prone to dispensing what we believe to be “unequal justice.” Accordingly, we have repeatedly urged the agency to adopt specific definitions for the attorney misconduct it seeks to regulate – as well as specific punishments for violators.
And then enforce these standards consistently …
In the case of Jefferies, though, it appears as though ODC will have no shortage of allegations with which to work. Last week, we reported on a case out of Horry county, S.C. in which Jefferies – an attorney with the Anastopoulo Law Firm in Charleston, S.C. – allegedly committed perjury and fraud in connection with real estate transactions tied to a disputed estate.
Two days later, we reported on an order from S.C. circuit court judge Robert Hood in which Jefferies was excoriated for “repeated discovery violations, mediation violations, and disobedience of court orders” in connection with a 2017 traffic accident case in Richland county, S.C.
That case included a reference to Jefferies’ now-notorious, vainglorious email signature … which lectures opposing lawyers as to his sparse availability and the various hoops they must jump through in order to merit mere consideration from him.
Hood’s order also stated that Jefferies repeatedly provided false information to various circuit court judges during hearings related to the Richland county case – as well as during a trial for that case that was held in August. In particular, the order cited repeated statements made by Jefferies before S.C. circuit court judge Casey Manning that went against “clear evidence to the contrary” and “unquestioned fact.”
According to our sources, there are several “other cases” referenced in the materials provided to ODC – including one in which Jefferies is accused of being associated with “planted evidence.”
One thing working in Jefferies’ favor? His mother-in-law is S.C. supreme court justice Kaye Hearn, one of five justices who oversees ODC.
Can she save him?
We shall see …
Stay tuned … this news outlet is in the process of pulling additional information related to Jefferies’ cases. We hope to file a follow-up report very soon.
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our stories? Please feel free to submit your own letter to the editor (or guest column) via-email HERE. Got a tip for us? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE. Want to support what we’re doing? SUBSCRIBE HERE.