Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
24883 - In the Matter of Nelson

Davis Adv. Sh. No. 3
S.E. 2d


In The Supreme Court

In the Matter of Eric

P. Nelson, Respondent.

Opinion No. 24883

Heard October 20, 1998 - Filed January 18, 1999


Eric P. Nelson, of Myrtle Beach, Pro Se Respondent.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smith, Jr.,

of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Council.

PER CURIAM: In this attorney discipline matter, the Respondent Eric

P. Nelson ("Attorney") is alleged to have committed misconduct by making

improper sexual advances toward employees, co-workers, a potential client,

and the relative of a client. Attorney was also alleged to have violated the

Rules of Professional Conduct in regard to several alcohol related matters.

In June of 1996, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

petitioned this Court to have Attorney suspended from the practice of law or,

in the alternative, placed on incapacity inactive status1 in light of Attorney's

admitted alcohol addiction. With Attorney's consent, the Court placed him

on incapacity inactive status, while stipulating that disciplinary proceedings

would go forward against him. Throughout the process, Attorney's defense

1Incapacity inactive status was known as "disability inactive status"

before the new Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement were adopted.



has been a mixture of denial of the allegations combined with attributing any

misconduct that did occur to his alcohol addiction and his doctor's treatment

of this condition.

In the disciplinary proceedings, the Panel found that "there is an

abundance of evidence which shows [Attorney] went through a period of time

in his life and practice where his conduct was impaired." The Panel also

found a "pattern of disturbing behavior [Attorney] exhibited while

intoxicated." The Panel concluded that Attorney "had a serious behavior

problem brought about by his abuse of alcohol" and "[t]here is no question

that [Attorney] has committed misconduct." The Panel recommended that

Attorney receive a public reprimand and have limitations placed upon him

pursuant to Rule 7(b)(10) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement,

Rule 413, SCACR which would require Attorney to continue to participate in

recovery programs for his alcohol addiction.

After hearing the arguments of counsel, reviewing the complete record

in this matter, and considering the applicable law and precedent, we find

that Attorney's misconduct requires a definite suspension from the practice

of law for nine months commencing after he is removed from incapacity

inactive status.2



Attorney represented a client ("Client") in a family court matter.

Attorney scheduled Client's niece ("Niece") to testify on her uncle's behalf.

Along with her sisters, Niece met Attorney at his hotel in Charleston one

night to prepare for her testimony the following day. Niece and her sisters

alleged that Attorney smelled of alcohol and used vulgar and profane

language when they met in the mezzanine. Attorney then requested that

Niece accompany him alone to his hotel room so they could prepare her testimony.

Once alone in the hotel room, instead of preparing her testimony,

2 Attorney has pending before this Court a petition for removal from

incapacity inactive status. This Court has held action on this petition in

abeyance pending an independent evaluation to determine whether Attorney

continues to suffer from major depression, alcohol dependence, and sexual

aggression. Attorney's request for reinstatement to active status will be

considered after this Court receives the results of the evaluating psychiatrist.



Attorney began pestering Niece about her relationship with her husband.

She testified that he belittled her religious beliefs and humiliated her. When

the bartender from the mezzanine level visited the room, Niece used this

opportunity to ask the bartender to have her sisters call her. When Niece's

sisters called, Attorney told them he and Niece were naked and then he

started making obscene sexual noises. Niece took the phone from Attorney

and asked her sisters to come get her. When her sisters knocked on the

door, Attorney again made obscene sexual noises. Niece then left the hotel.

Except for a parting hug, the parties agreed Attorney never physically

touched Niece.

Attorney and Client ultimately prevailed in the family court matter.

After the trial was over, Client's family and Attorney went out to eat and, in

front of her entire family, Attorney asked Niece out on a date that she

refused. Later that night, Attorney called the family's hotel room while Niece

was out shopping. Attorney talked to Niece's sister and told her that he was

in love with Niece and would "have" her one day and that they would soon

be married.


Attorney employed T.F. as an associate attorney from 1993 until 1995.

She testified about an instance in which Attorney made improper sexual

advances toward her. She and Attorney were working on a case in Columbia

and staying in a hotel overnight. Although they had separate rooms,

Attorney asked her to come by his room after dinner to discuss business.

After discussing billable hours and goals, T.F. testified Attorney offered her

alcohol and told her that he hired her because of her looks and that he

wanted a relationship with her. She testified that she rebuffed his advances

and there was no physical touching involved. After this trip, T.F. testified

that Attorney treated her very differently and was often angry with her for

no apparent reason.


M.W. was an associate attorney who worked for Attorney from August

1995 until February 1996. M.W. had discussed the possibility of getting a

divorce from her husband with Attorney. M.W. testified before the Panel

that Attorney made sexual advances toward her and tried to get her to leave

her husband. She admitted that Attorney never touched her. The main

incident in question occurred while M.W.'s infant son was hospitalized in

Charleston. Attorney called M.W. late at night and told her that he had



gained access to an intensive care unit treating her infant. She testified that

he berated her and her husband for not, as he saw it, properly caring for the

child. M.W. testified that Attorney told her that he gained entrance to this

restricted area of the hospital with a gun. No criminal charges arising from

the hospital incident appear in the Record or Report.


R.C. worked as an associate for Attorney in 1994. She testified that

one night while working late, Attorney came into her office, offered her a

beer, and initiated a very personal conversation. He questioned her about

her personal life and offered to father a child for her because at the time she

was not in a steady relationship. She rebuffed his advances and tried to

leave the office. Before she left, she testified Attorney had an emotional

breakdown and started to cry. R.C. stated that she, felt he may have been

suicidal but that she feared more for her own safety so she left the office.

As a result of Attorney's behavior directed at her, R.C. testified she changed

her manner of dress and developed a more negative attitude toward life.


Potential Client was an employee of the Lowe's paint department in

1993. She met Attorney when he bought some paint from her. Potential

Client found out that he was a lawyer and told him she had legal problems

concerning the custody of her children. She later visited his office concerning

these custody matters. She testified that while she was at Attorney's office,

he was drinking and made aggressive and improper sexual advances. These

advances included uninvited physical touching by Attorney. Attorney also

told her he was "the most powerful attorney in all of Myrtle Beach." She

rebuffed his advances and left the office. Attorney, upset by her rejection,

followed behind her calling her names such as "trailer trash."

After her visit, Potential Client, took out an arrest warrant on Attorney,

but later dropped the charge after court personnel convinced her that it

would not be successful. She also accepted an $800.00 check from Attorney

as a settlement in the matter, but never signed the release papers.


The allegations concerning an improper and coerced sexual relationship

between Attorney and his receptionist were some of the most serious leveled

against Attorney. She has since moved out of the state and did not appear



in front of the Panel to testify as to her experiences with Attorney. As a

result, the Panel, concluded that they had no credible evidence to find specific

wrongdoings against Attorney in this matter. There is, however, evidence in

the Record revealing Attorney behaved improperly in relation to this

employee. Testimony by R.C. relates that the receptionist called her up late

at night crying and upset because Attorney was beating on the door of her

home demanding to be let in. The affidavits and testimony of T.F. and R.C.,

both who were employed as associate attorneys while the receptionist worked

for Attorney, supported the receptionist's initial allegations of an improper

sexual relationship. There was also testimony that R.C. and T.F. finally

decided to leave Attorney's firm after discussions with the receptionist.


Perhaps the most disturbing of the allegations leveled against Attorney

came from a young woman ("M.A.") and the Coast Guard. Like the

receptionist, M.A. failed to appear and testify at Attorney's Panel Hearing.

For this reason, the Panel did not consider any of the allegations in their

report. There is, however, plenty of material in the Record to gain an

understanding of the events that occurred between M.A., Attorney, and the

Coast Guard. Attorney denied all wrongdoing in this matter.

On September 27, 1995, M.A. went on a boat trip with Attorney off

Myrtle Beach. They were gone most of the day and the evening together.

Late that night, the Coast Guard received a call from M.A.'s mother. She

told them that her daughter was stuck on a boat offshore and needed to be

brought home. The Coast Guard found Attorney's boat stuck in the Little

River and removed M.A. from the boat at her request. The Coast Guard

returned to the boat and tried to board it to check on Attorney. Their efforts

were stalled for more than an hour as Attorney's dog kept the Coast Guard

members at bay. After they finally boarded the ship, the Coast Guard found

Attorney unconscious with a loaded shotgun on board the boat. After

removing her from the boat, the Coast Guard reported that M.A. was very

upset and scared of Attorney.

As mentioned above, M.A. did not testify about the alleged sexual

advances Attorney made during the time he had her on his boat. The Coast

Guard's incident report and other materials that are part of the Record

contain her version of the events. Particularly disturbing is the Coast

Guard's incident report and testimony before the Panel describing Attorney's

actions that night on the boat. The incident report notes that Attorney

advised the Coast Guard members that he was a lawyer and had a friend in



Congress that they would be hearing from as a result of their actions.

Furthermore, in the follow up interview concerning the incident, Detective

Tommy Flowers noted in his report that during the interview, Attorney was

very arrogant and began the interview by arguing with the detective over

jurisdictional matters. As noted above, since M.A. did not testify, the Panel

did not consider these allegations in its final report and recommendation.


The authority to discipline attorneys and the manner in which the

discipline is given rests entirely with this Court. In re Wofford, 330 S.C. 522,

500 S.E.2d 486, 489 (1998). Furthermore, in attorney disciplinary

proceedings, this Court may make its own findings of fact and conclusions of

law. In re Marshall, 498 S.E.2d 869 (1998). We find, by the various

instances of misconduct reviewed by the Panel, Attorney has engaged in

conduct tending to bring the court or legal profession into disrepute. Also,

Attorney engaged in conduct involving moral turpitude. By his actions,

respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and (e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct

contained in Rule 407, SCACR, and Rule 7(a)(5) of the Rules for Lawyer

Disciplinary Enforcement contained in Rule 413, SCACR.

We have duly considered Attorney's admitted alcoholism in determining

the appropriate sanction. See In re Brooks, 324 S.C. 105, 477 S.E.2d 98

(1996)(finding that alcoholism may be considered in determining appropriate

sanction for attorney misconduct.); In re Perry, 291 S.C. 124, 352 S.E.2d 479

(1987)(same). Further, this Court agrees with the Panel that alcohol

contributed greatly to Attorney's troubles in this case. However, alcohol and

depression do not excuse attorney misconduct. Brooks, 324 S.C. at 105, 477

S.E.2d at 98; In re Fullwood, 322 S.C. 1, 6, 471 S.E.2d 151, 154 (1996). Prior

to the completion of this case, Attorney has sought treatment for his alcohol

addiction and his progress appears promising. This Court is concerned,

however, by the Record's insufficient amount of information concerning the

diagnosis or treatment of Attorney's sexual aggression towards women. The

Panel concluded that any sexual aggressive conduct resulted from the

alcoholism and intoxication. Although entitled to great deference, the Panel's

findings in this matter are not binding upon this Court. In re Dobson, 310

S.C. 422, 427 S.E.2d 166 (1993).

The primary purpose of disbarment or suspension is the removal of an

unfit person from the profession for the protection of the courts and the

public, not punishment of the offending attorney. Brooks, 324 S.C. at 105,

477 S.E.2d at 99. The purpose of the examination of Attorney directed in



connection with his petition for removal from incapacity inactive status is to

get an objective evaluation of Attorney's current status and need for

additional treatment. Once Attorney is removed from incapacity inactive

status, his nine month suspension shall commence.