In the Matter of Mark Andrew Brunty
411 S.C. 434
| S.C. | 2015Background
- Mark Andrew Brunty was served with Formal Charges in March 2014, failed to answer or appear, and was held in default; default treated as admission of the factual allegations.
- ODC alleged extensive misconduct across numerous client matters: misappropriation of client and investor funds, forged/altered documents, false statements to disciplinary investigators, impermissible sexual relationship with a client, and use of deceptive marketing/unauthorized practice of law for out-of-state loan‑modification clients.
- Investigators found altered bank records, diversion of trust funds to operating accounts, failure to safeguard client funds, and widespread noncooperation with ODC; federal indictment and conviction (conspiracy to commit wire fraud) resulted in a 46‑month sentence and large restitution order.
- The disciplinary Panel, after a default hearing, found violations of many RPC and RLDE provisions and recommended disbarment plus restitution and educational conditions.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court adopted the Panel's findings and recommendation: disbarment, payment of proceeding costs, restitution to 49 identified clients, repayment to the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection if applicable, and completion of specified ethics/trust/advertising programs before readmission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ODC) | Defendant's Argument (Brunty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent's default limits review to sanction only | Default admitted facts; only sanction remains for the Court to decide | No response (default) | Default controls; Court limited to determining appropriate sanction (affirmed Panel authority) |
| Appropriate disciplinary sanction for extensive misconduct (misappropriation, fraud, false statements, unauthorized practice) | Disbarment is warranted given magnitude, aggravating factors, false testimony, and noncooperation | No response | Court ordered disbarment and imposed ancillary conditions and restitution |
| Whether restitution, repayment to client protection fund, costs, and educational prerequisites are appropriate | Restitution to listed victims, repayment to Fund, payment of costs, and completion of ethics/trust/advertising programs are necessary before reinstatement | No response | Court required restitution to 49 clients, repayment to Lawyers Fund if applicable, payment of costs, and completion of specified programs prior to readmission |
| Procedural compliance following disbarment (surrender of admission certificate and affidavit) | Immediate compliance with Rule 30 and surrender of Certificate of Admission required | No response | Court ordered Brunty to file affidavit within 15 days and surrender Certificate of Admission |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Berger, 408 S.C. 313, 759 S.E.2d 716 (2014) (where respondent defaults, sole issue is appropriate sanction)
- In re Hall, 333 S.C. 247, 509 S.E.2d 266 (1998) (respondent's failures to answer and appear weigh in sanction determination)
- In re Jardine, 410 S.C. 369, 764 S.E.2d 924 (2014) (disciplinary sanction is within Court's discretion and default impacts scope of review)