## Facts

- A senior South Carolina attorney supervised a junior lawyer whose conduct during depositions was alleged to constitute discovery abuse.
- Disciplinary authorities initiated proceedings against the senior attorney based on supervisory responsibility for the junior lawyer’s deposition conduct.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction in attorney discipline and used the proceeding to clarify (1) supervisory obligations under Rule 5.1 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and (2) acceptable deposition conduct under South Carolina’s revised discovery rules designed to curb deposition abuses.

## Issues

1. Whether a supervising lawyer may be professionally disciplined under Rule 5.1 for failures in supervision related to a subordinate lawyer’s deposition misconduct, even absent tort-style “vicarious liability.”
2. What supervisory duties Rule 5.1 imposes on partners and lawyers with direct supervisory authority, including duties to implement firm measures and to take remedial action upon learning of misconduct.
3. Whether abusive deposition practices can constitute professional misconduct subject to discipline in addition to procedural sanctions under the discovery rules.

## Decision

- The Court stated that South Carolina lawyers do not face tort-like “vicarious liability” for another lawyer’s ethical violations, but supervising lawyers may be disciplined for their own violations of Rule 5.1.
- The Court held that Rule 5.1 creates enforceable, independent duties; a supervisory lawyer’s sanction may be imposed separately from any sanction for the subordinate lawyer’s conduct.
- The Court explained that Rule 5.1 recognizes multiple layers of supervisory responsibility: firm-wide measures by partners, reasonable supervisory efforts by lawyers with direct authority, and heightened responsibility when a supervisor orders/ratifies misconduct or knowingly fails to take reasonable remedial action.
- The Court emphasized that deposition discovery abuse is a serious professional responsibility concern under the revised discovery rules and warned that obstructive deposition tactics may lead to disciplinary consequences.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 5.1 imposes direct ethical duties on partners and supervisory lawyers; discipline may be based on the supervisor’s own acts or omissions, not on derivative liability.
- A partner must make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures providing reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to professional conduct rules.
- A lawyer with direct supervisory authority must make reasonable efforts to ensure a subordinate lawyer’s compliance and may be sanctioned for unreasonable supervision even without actual knowledge of the subordinate’s specific misconduct.
- A lawyer is responsible for another lawyer’s violation when the lawyer orders or knowingly ratifies the conduct, or when the lawyer knows of misconduct in time to mitigate harm and fails to take reasonable remedial action.
- Abusive deposition conduct may implicate both procedural discovery enforcement and professional discipline; supervisors must train, monitor, and intervene to prevent or correct discovery abuses.

## Conclusion

The South Carolina Supreme Court clarified that Rule 5.1 creates independent, disciplinable supervisory duties—separate from any concept of vicarious liability—and warned that deposition discovery abuse under the revised discovery rules can support professional discipline, particularly where supervisors fail to implement preventive measures or to take reasonable remedial action when misconduct becomes known.


In re Anonymous Member of the S.C. Bar, 346 S.C. 177, 552 S.E.2d 10 (S.C. 2001)