IN RE: Darren S. HALEY (2021)

ORDER

By opinion dated August 11, 2021, this Court publicly reprimanded Respondent as reciprocal discipline following his public reprimand in North Carolina. In re Haley, Op. No. 28048 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Aug. 11, 2021) (Howard Adv. Sh. No. 27 at 19). Respondent thereafter filed a petition for rehearing. After careful consideration of Respondent's petition, we grant the petition for rehearing, dispense with further briefing, and substitute the attached opinion for the opinion previously filed in this matter.

s/ Donald W. Beatty, C.J.

s/ John W. Kittredge, J.

s/ Kaye G. Hearn, J.

s/ John Cannon Few, J.

s/ George C. James, Jr., J.

By order of the Grievance Committee of the North Carolina State Bar dated May 14, 2019, Respondent was reprimanded for violating the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.¹ The order was forwarded to this Court by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) on January 19, 2021. Thereafter, pursuant to Rule 29(b), RLDE, ODC and Respondent were notified by letter of the Clerk of this Court that they had thirty days to inform the Court of any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in South Carolina is not warranted. On February 18, 2021, Respondent submitted a response arguing a private reprimand was the appropriate sanction given his lack of “intent to defraud.”

We find a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction to impose as reciprocal discipline, as none of the reasons set forth in Rule 29(d), RLDE, exist to justify different discipline in this matter.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The order states that in 2017, Respondent submitted a motion in Mecklenburg County Superior Court seeking to be admitted pro hac vice in North Carolina to represent a client in a criminal matter. In the motion, Respondent failed to reveal that in 2005, this Court suspended him from the practice of law for thirty days and that in 2006, reciprocal discipline was imposed in Virginia, where he is also licensed to practice law. See In re Haley, 366 S.C. 363, 622 S.E.2d 538 (2005) (publicly reprimanding Respondent for a lack of diligence and communication and failing to consult with his client). The order concluded Respondent violated Rules 3.3(a) (false statement of fact to a tribunal); 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty); and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was reprimanded for the violations.