S.C. App. Ct. R. 5.1
S.C. App. Ct. R. 5.1
Comment
[1] Paragraph (a) applies to lawyers who have managerial authority over the professional work of a firm. See Rule 1.0(e). This includes members of a partnership, the shareholders in a law firm organized as a professional corporation, and members of other associations authorized to practice law; lawyers having comparable managerial authority in a legal services organization or a law department of an enterprise or government agency; and lawyers who have intermediate managerial responsibilities in a firm. Paragraph (b) applies to lawyers who have supervisory authority over the work of other lawyers in a firm.
[2] Paragraph (a) requires lawyers with managerial authority within a firm to make reasonable efforts to establish internal policies and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm will conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Such policies and procedures include those designed to detect and resolve conflicts of interest, identify dates by which actions must be taken in pending matters, account for client funds and property and ensure that inexperienced lawyers are properly supervised.
[3] Other measures that may be required to fulfill the responsibility prescribed in paragraph (a) can depend on the firm's structure and the nature of its practice. In a small firm of experienced lawyers, informal supervision and periodic review of compliance with the required systems ordinarily will suffice. In a large firm, or in practice situations in which difficult ethical problems frequently arise, more elaborate measures may be necessary. Some firms, for example, have a procedure whereby junior lawyers can make confidential referral of ethical problems directly to a designated senior partner or special committee. See Rule 5.2. Firms, whether large or small, may also rely on continuing legal education in professional ethics. In any event, the ethical atmosphere of a firm can influence the conduct of all its members and the partners may not assume that all lawyers associated with the firm will inevitably conform to the Rules.
[4] Paragraph (c) expresses a general principle of personal responsibility for acts of another. See also Rule 8.4(a).
[5] Paragraph (c)(2) defines the duty of a partner or other lawyer having comparable managerial authority in a law firm, as well as a lawyer who has direct supervisory authority over performance of specific legal work by another lawyer. Whether a lawyer has supervisory authority in particular circumstances is a question of fact. Partners and lawyers with comparable authority have at least indirect responsibility for all work being done by the firm, while a partner or manager in charge of a particular matter ordinarily also has supervisory responsibility for the work of other firm lawyers engaged in the matter. Appropriate remedial action by a partner or managing lawyer would depend on the immediacy of that lawyer's involvement and the seriousness of the misconduct. A supervisor is required to intervene to prevent avoidable consequences of misconduct if the supervisor knows that the misconduct occurred. Thus, if a supervising lawyer knows that a subordinate misrepresented a matter to an opposing party in negotiation, the supervisor as well as the subordinate has a duty to correct the resulting misapprehension.
[6] Professional misconduct by a lawyer under supervision could reveal a violation of paragraph (b) on the part of the supervisory lawyer even though it does not entail a violation of paragraph (c) because there was no direction, ratification or knowledge of the violation.
[7] Apart from this Rule and Rule 8.4(a), a lawyer does not have disciplinary liability for the conduct of a partner, associate or subordinate. Whether a lawyer may be liable civilly or criminally for another lawyer's conduct is a question of law beyond the scope of these Rules.
[8] The duties imposed by this Rule on managing and supervising lawyers do not alter the personal duty of each lawyer in a firm to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Rule 5.2(a).
[9] Paragraph (d) expresses a principle of responsibility to the clients of the law firm. Where partners or lawyers with comparable authority reasonably believe a lawyer is suffering from a significant cognitive impairment, they have a duty to protect the interests of clients and ensure that the representation does not harm clients or result in a violation of these rules. See Rule 1.16(a). One mechanism for addressing concerns before matters must be taken to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel is found in Rule 428, SCACR. See also Rule 8.3(c) regarding the obligation to report a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct when there is knowledge a violation has been committed as opposed to a belief that the lawyer may be suffering from an impairment of the lawyer's cognitive function.
[10] Under limited circumstances, a suspended lawyer may be employed by a lawyer, law firm, or any other entity providing legal services during the period of suspension. See Rule 34, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In such circumstances, the supervising lawyer shall be solely responsible for the supervision of the suspended lawyer. If the suspended lawyer violates the rules allowing for employment during suspension or any other rule while under the supervision of the supervising lawyer, the supervising lawyer shall be subject to discipline.