## Facts

- David E. Belding, a South Carolina attorney, was charged in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding arising from two unrelated client matters.
- In the Hunnicutt matter, Belding prepared a packet of documents designed to appear to be genuine divorce litigation materials, including pleadings and related papers with fictitious docket information and apparent court processing.
- Belding included fabricated items such as a summons and complaint with a fictitious filing stamp, a consent order and other documents bearing signatures he placed in the names of other attorneys, and an order bearing the purported signature of a judge.
- Belding gave the documents to the husband client with the understanding they would be shown to the wife as part of a plan to “shock” her; the materials were discovered by the wife, who believed a divorce action was pending.
- The wife forwarded the materials to a lawyer relative, who contacted the named lawyer and judge; they denied involvement, and the matter was reported to disciplinary authorities.
- In the Carmen matter, Belding represented a client seeking increased child support; after receiving notice that a hearing date had been moved earlier, he failed to inform the client and neither appeared at the rescheduled hearing.
- After the missed hearing, opposing counsel offered settlement terms; Belding, unable to reach his client, accepted the settlement offer without her prior authorization.

## Issues

1. Whether creating fictitious legal documents that appear to be authentic court filings, including use of forged attorney and judicial signatures, constitutes professional misconduct warranting substantial discipline.
2. Whether failing to communicate a rescheduled hearing date, missing the hearing, and accepting a settlement without client consent violates professional duties and affects the appropriate sanction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina found Belding committed serious misconduct in the Hunnicutt matter by creating fictitious legal documents and using forged signatures that misrepresented the existence of court proceedings.
- The court also found misconduct in the Carmen matter based on failure to communicate and attend a rescheduled hearing and acceptance of a settlement without client authorization.
- The court imposed a definite suspension from the practice of law.

## Legal Principles

- Lawyers may not fabricate legal proceedings or create documents that falsely appear to be filed, issued, or authorized by a court.
- Forging or falsely affixing the signatures of judges or other attorneys, or using false docketing and filing indicia, constitutes dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, regardless of whether the documents are actually filed.
- A lawyer must keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments, including hearing dates and scheduling changes.
- A lawyer may not accept or finalize a settlement without the client’s informed consent.
- In setting discipline, the court considers the nature and extent of misconduct, actual or potential harm, and the need to protect public confidence in the legal profession and the judicial process.

## Conclusion

The court suspended Belding after finding that he fabricated divorce-related court papers with forged signatures, creating the false appearance of active litigation, and separately neglected a client’s family-law matter by missing a rescheduled hearing and accepting settlement terms without the client’s approval.


In re Belding, 589 S.E.2d 197 (S.C. 2003)