In Re Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar, 709 S.E.2d 633

Respondent, an attorney, was disciplined over an email (the “Drug Dealer” email) sent to opposing counsel in a domestic-relations matter.
Respondent represented the mother; Attorney Doe represented the father; the email referenced the daughter of Attorney Doe, who had no connection to the case.
The Hearing Panel found Respondent violated Rule 7(a)(5), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and Rule 8.4(e), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, as well as Rule 7(a)(6), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.
The Panel majority would have admonished Respondent and taxed costs; one member recommended a Letter of Caution with a finding of minor misconduct; the Court issued a private Letter of Caution instead.
The Court addressed incivility in the bar, noting the civility oath and rejecting arguments that the oath is vague or overbroad, citing concerns about professional conduct and administration of justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Respondent violate ethics rules by sending the email?	Respondent violated the disciplinary rules by tendentiously attacking counsel and family in a manner prejudicial to justice.	Respondent claimed the email was in response to daily harassment by opposing counsel and that other communications undermine credibility.	Yes; violations found for conduct prejudicial to justice and oath.
Is the civility oath vague under due process principles?	Civility clause sufficiently guides professional conduct; framework ensures integrity of process.	The civility clause is vague and overbroad and unconstitutionally infringes speech.	Not vague; not unconstitutionally overbroad.
Is the civility oath overbreadth analysis appropriate under First Amendment standards?	Overbreadth does not undermine severable parts of the oath in professional regulation.	The oath could chill protected speech if overly broad.	Civility oath not unconstitutionally overbroad.
What sanction is appropriate for Respondent's misconduct?	Admonition or public sanction may be warranted.	Remorse and mitigation support a less severe outcome.	Private Letter of Caution with finding of minor misconduct.

In re Thompson, 343 S.C. 1 (2000) (court-ordered discipline standard; appellate review authority)
In re Marshall, 331 S.C. 514 (1998) (weight given to Panel findings)
In re Goude, 296 S.C. 510 (1988) (professional conduct and respect for judiciary)
Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006) (civilities rules; notice and constraints on speech)
In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985) (First Amendment limits for lawyers; not protected as lay speech)
In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622 (1959) (speech restrictions for lawyers in pending cases)
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) (ethics restrictions may limit speech to protect justice system)
In re Johnson, 240 Kan. 334 (1986) (state interest in regulating lawyer speech)
In re Woodward, 300 S.W.2d 385 (1957) (professional misconduct and public trust)
State v. Albert, 257 S.C. 131 (1971) (due process and vagueness standards)
Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557 (2001) (guidance on due process and notice)
In re Amir X.S., 371 S.C. 380 (2006) (First Amendment considerations in professional discipline)