In the Matter of Frank Barnwell McMaster
27697
| S.C. | Jan 11, 2017Background
- Frank B. McMaster was arrested twice (2013 and 2014) for alcohol-related offenses; he pleaded guilty to DUI and improper turn in 2013 and to unlawful carrying of a pistol in 2014. The Court placed him on interim suspension in 2014.
- The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and McMaster stipulated facts and filed formal charges alleging violations of Rule 8.4(b) (criminal acts reflecting adversely on lawyer fitness) and related disciplinary rules.
- McMaster attributed his misconduct to alcohol abuse and depression following his marital dissolution, sought medical and psychiatric treatment, and entered a two-year monitoring agreement with Lawyers Helping Lawyers in January 2015.
- Evaluations from treating physicians and psychiatric services concluded McMaster could return to practice if he remained in treatment and sober; the record showed compliance with monitoring and treatment requirements to date.
- The Commission Panel found aggravating (illegal conduct) and mitigating factors (no prior discipline; cooperation; mental-health/substance issues), and recommended a 30-month suspension retroactive to March 4, 2014, costs, ethics school, renewed monitoring, and periodic provider reports.
- Neither ODC nor McMaster objected to the Panel's recommendations; the Supreme Court adopted the Panel's recommendations, imposing the thirty-month retroactive suspension, costs, and monitoring conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McMaster's criminal conduct warranted discipline for violating Rule 8.4(b) | ODC: Criminal acts reflecting adversely on honesty/fitness warrant discipline | McMaster: Conduct was tied to alcohol/depression, he has sought treatment and cooperated | Court: Misconduct established; discipline appropriate under Rule 8.4(b) |
| Appropriate sanction severity | ODC: Suspension and monitoring appropriate given illegal conduct | McMaster: Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, treatment, compliance) support rehabilitation-focused sanction | Court: Adopted Panel's 30-month suspension (retroactive), balancing protection and rehabilitation |
| Retroactive suspension to interim suspension date | ODC: Retroactivity to March 4, 2014 justified by interim suspension | McMaster: Did not object to retroactivity | Court: Suspended retroactive to March 4, 2014 |
| Additional conditions (costs, monitoring, education, provider reporting) | ODC: Costs, ethics school, renewed monitoring, and provider reports necessary to protect public | McMaster: Agreed to monitoring and treatment conditions | Court: Imposed costs ($402.20), ethics school, two-year monitoring/treatment with quarterly reports |
Key Cases Cited
- In re White, 391 S.C. 581, 707 S.E.2d 411 (2011) (discipline decision is within Court's discretion)
- In re Marshall, 331 S.C. 514, 498 S.E.2d 869 (1998) (Panel findings entitled to great weight)
- In re Brown, 361 S.C. 347, 605 S.E.2d 509 (2004) (discipline aims to protect public from unscrupulous lawyers)
- In re Hall, 333 S.C. 247, 509 S.E.2d 266 (1998) (primary purpose of discipline is public protection)
- In re Brooks, 324 S.C. 105, 477 S.E.2d 98 (1996) (suspension removes unfit persons for public protection)
- In re Johnson, 386 S.C. 550, 689 S.E.2d 623 (2010) (lack of prior discipline is a mitigating factor)
- In re Woodruff, 313 S.C. 378, 438 S.E.2d 227 (1993) (substance abuse not a mitigating factor per se but relevant to sanction)
- In re Collie, 406 S.C. 181, 749 S.E.2d 522 (2013) (failure to maintain accurate contact information can result in interim suspension)