In the Matter of Sara Elizabeth Smoot

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court In the Matter of Sara Elizabeth Smoot, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2026-000381 Opinion No. 28351 Submitted July 16, 2026 – Filed September 2, 2026 PUBLIC REPRIMAND Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch, Jr., and Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Kristina Jones Catoe, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Sara Elizabeth Smoot, of Hilton Head Island, pro se. PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct, agrees to pay costs and to other conditions of discipline, and consents to the imposition of a confidential admonition or a public reprimand. We accept the Agreement and issue a public reprimand. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows. I. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 2005, and she has no prior disciplinary history. She previously operated a solo practice in Bluffton. However, in 2023, Respondent closed her solo practice and began working for a non-profit organization. She is currently an inactive member of the Bar in good standing, and none of Respondent's former clients have filed claims with the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection. A business client hired Respondent to issue a title insurance policy for a refinance transaction which closed on February 16, 2022. Respondent accepted $10,803.30 as payment of the title insurance binder fee, endorsement fee, and attorney's fees, but Respondent failed to issue a title insurance policy. Respondent represents that she did not have support staff in her office and was overwhelmed with her case load. Respondent further represents that she normally issued title insurance policies within two days of a closing; however, Respondent failed to calendar a deadline for issuing the policy for this business client. The business client began contacting Respondent by telephone and email in December 2022 when an audit revealed Respondent had not issued the policy. Respondent did not respond to the client's inquiries and closed her practice shortly thereafter. Respondent represents that she is now unable to issue the policy because she cannot locate the client file which was misplaced. II. Respondent admits that her conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.3 (requiring diligence); Rule 1.4 (requiring reasonable and timely communication); Rule 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to safeguard client funds and property); Rule 1.16(d) (requiring the return of client funds and property upon termination of representation); Rule 8.4(a) (prohibiting misconduct); and Rule 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Respondent also admits her misconduct is grounds for discipline under Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (providing violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct are grounds for discipline). In the Agreement, Respondent agrees to the imposition of a confidential admonition or a public reprimand as a sanction for her misconduct. She also agrees to pay, within thirty days, the costs incurred by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct in investigating and prosecuting this matter. As a condition of discipline, Respondent agrees to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School prior to requesting to return to active status as a member of the Bar. In a supplement to the Agreement, Respondent also agrees to enter into a restitution plan approved by the Commission within thirty days of the imposition of a sanction to pay restitution in the amount of $10,803.30 to her former business client.  III. Because Respondent has agreed to make full restitution of the funds she accepted as payment for a title insurance policy she never issued, we reluctantly conclude a public reprimand is an acceptable sanction for Respondent's misconduct. Cf. In re Martin, 389 S.C. 467, 699 S.E.2d 695 (imposing a public reprimand where an attorney incorrectly issued a title insurance policy out of carelessness and inattention rather than fraud or deceit). Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand Respondent for her misconduct. Within thirty days, Respondent shall: (1) pay the costs incurred by ODC and the Commission in the investigation and prosecution of this matter; and (2) enter into a restitution plan approved by the Commission for restitution to her former business client in the amount of $10,803.30. Additionally, prior to requesting to return to active status as a member of the Bar, Respondent shall complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and provide proof of completion in submitting her request for a membership status change. PUBLIC REPRIMAND. KITTREDGE, C.J., JAMES, HILL and VERDIN, JJ., concur.