ORDER
On April 13, 2022, this Court suspended Petitioner from the practice of law for nine months, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension on April 16, 2021.
1
In re DuPree, , 436 S.C. 246, 871 S.E.2d 585 (2022) (Howard Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 13). Petitioner now seeks reinstatement pursuant to Rule 33, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.
Because the Court heard argument on the parties Agreement for Discipline by Consent shortly before issuing the opinion suspending Petitioner
2
and Petitioners misconduct did not involve harm to clients, the Court decides this matter without referral to the Committee on Character and Fitness.
3
See Rule 33(d), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (providing petitions for reinstatement following a definite suspension for nine months or more shall be referred to the Committee “unless otherwise directed by the Supreme Court”).
Based on the petition and the recent hearing, the Court finds Petitioner has satisfied the conditions imposed by the opinion suspending him and the requirements for reinstatement. Therefore, we grant the petition for reinstatement conditioned upon Petitioner entering into and complying with a three-year monitoring agreement with Lawyers Helping Lawyers. Petitioner shall ensure quarterly reports by his treating physician are filed with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct regarding Petitioners diagnosis, treatment compliance, and prognosis, for a period of three years. 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.
FOOTNOTES
1
. In re DuPree, 433 S.C. 240, 857 S.E.2d 792 (2021).
2
. Oral argument included sworn testimony from Petitioner.
3
. In its return, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel expressed no objection to this procedure.