S.E. 2d
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
In the Matter of Harry
C. Brown, Sr., Respondent.
Opinion No. 24889
Submitted January 5, 1999 -Filed January 25, 1999
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Henry B. Richardson, Jr., of Columbia, Disciplinary Counsel.
Russell Brown, of Charleston, for respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this judicial disciplinary matter, respondent
and disciplinary counsel have entered into an agreement under Rule 21,
RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR. In the agreement, respondent admits misconduct
and consents to a public reprimand. We accept the agreement.
Respondent is a former Probate Judge for the County of Jasper,
South Carolina. From September 12, 1996, through December 18, 1996,
respondent performed 220 marriages. Respondent charged and retained for
his personal use a fee for each marriage. On December 18, 1996, this Court
entered an order privately reprimanding respondent in his capacity as
Probate Judge and ordering him not to personally retain any further
compensation for performing marriages. Respondent was to remit to the
county treasurer any monies received prior to the order or obtained in the
future. Respondent was cautioned in the strongest language not to continue
p.27
IN THE MATTER OF BROWN
the practice of taking compensation for marriages or respondent would be
held in contempt.
From December 18, 1996, through December 7, 1997, respondent
performed 901 marriages. He also charged and retained compensation for
these marriages. In addition, respondent did not remit to the county
treasurer any of the monies obtained before or after the December 18, 1996 order.
On December 18, 1997, this Court issued an order requiring
respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for
violating the December 18, 1996 order. The December 18, 1997 order
appointed the Honorable John W. Kittredge as a referee to take evidence and
make findings of fact and submit a recommendation as to whether
respondent was in contempt of the December 18, 1996 order. Respondent
was also placed on interim suspension from his duties as Probate Judge and
from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 17(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.
The referee held an evidentiary hearing, and thereafter issued
an order recommending that respondent be held in contempt of the
December 18, 1996 order. This Court adopted the referee's finding and
issued an order dated June 4, 1998, holding the respondent in both civil and
criminal contempt. Matter of Brown, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated June 4, 1998
(Davis Adv. Sh. No. 21 at 78). Subsequently, respondent resigned from his
duties.
As a result of his conduct, respondent has violated the following:
Rule 7(a)(1)(violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct), Rule 7(a)(2)(willful
violation of a valid order of the Supreme Court), and Rule 7(a)(7)(willful
violation of a valid court order issued by a court of this state), Rules for
Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 502, SCACR; Canon l(A)(failure to
maintain and observe the high standards of conduct to preserve the
independence and integrity of the judiciary), Canon 2(A)(failure to respect
and comply with the law, and failure to conduct himself in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary), Canon
2(B)(failure to prevent familial, social, political, or other relationships from
exercising influence in the judge's judicial conduct or judgment, lending of
the prestige of his judicial office for the private interests of himself or others),
Canon 3(A)(failure to give judicial duties precedence over the judge's other
activities), Canon 3(B)(2)(failure to be faithful to the law and maintain
p.28
IN THE MATTER OF BROWN
professional competence in it), Canon 4(A)(3)(failure to prevent his extra-
judicial activities from interfering with the proper performance of judicial
activities), Canon 4(D)(1)(a)(engaging in financial and business dealings that
may be reasonably be perceived as exploitive of his office), and Canon
4(H)(1)(receiving compensation that gives the appearance of impropriety), of
the Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 501, SCACR; Rule 7(a)(1)(violating the
Rules of Professional Conduct), Rule (3)(willfully violating a valid order of
the Supreme Court), and Rule (7)(willfully violating a valid court order from
this state or another jurisdiction) of the Rules of Lawyer Discipline
Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR; and Rule 8.4(a)(violating the Rules of
Professional Conduct), Rule 8.4(b)(commission of a criminal act that
adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness), Rule 8.4(c)(engaging in
conduct involving moral turpitude), Rule 8.4(d)(engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), Rule 8.4(e)(engaging in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and Rule
8.4(g)(knowingly assisting a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a
violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law), of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR.
Because respondent is no longer a judge and because he has
agreed not to hereafter seek or accept any judicial position within the State
of South Carolina unless first authorized to do so by this Court, we have
decided to accept the agreement for a public reprimand. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for his conduct.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND.
p.29