In the Matter of Jason F. Taylor

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court In the Matter of Jason F. Taylor, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2026-000382 Opinion No. 28353 Submitted September 25, 2026 – Filed October 21, 2026 DISBARRED Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch, Jr., and Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Connor J. Parker, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Barbara Marie Seymour, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent. 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 consents to any sanction in Rule 7(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. We accept the Agreement and disbar Respondent from the practice of law in this state retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. I. Respondent was admitted to practice law in South Carolina in 2012. On November 3, 2020, Respondent was placed on interim suspension, and the Receiver was appointed to protect his clients' interests the following day. In re Taylor, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Nov. 3, 2020; In re Taylor, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Nov. 4, 2020. This Agreement involves four disciplinary matters, two of which are practice-related and two of which involve Respondent pointing and presenting a firearm. Matter A On March 13, 2018, W.L., a member of the South Carolina Bar, associated Respondent on a products liability case involving injuries sustained by A.S., a minor. Respondent informed W.L. that Respondent would locate and retain an expert witness for the case, and W.L. agreed to split the cost of the expert with Respondent 50/50. In March 2018, Respondent consulted with pyrotechnics expert J.D. as a potential expert witness. J.D. emailed Respondent materials about his services, but J.D. declined the engagement at the consultation, charged no fee, and rendered no services. Respondent nevertheless forwarded W.L. the materials from J.D., including a resume, cost schedule, case questionnaire, and completed W-9 form. On September 28, 2018, Respondent told W.L. that J.D. needed to be disclosed as an expert in the federal court's local rule interrogatories. That same day, Respondent also told W.L. that Respondent had paid the initial $5,000 portion of J.D.'s retainer, which had been spent, and requested W.L. write a $5,000 check to replenish the retainer. In support of this request, Respondent forwarded to W.L. a W-9 form containing J.D.'s taxpayer information and with Respondent's firm's name as the requestor. W.L. issued Respondent a $5,000 check for replenishment of the retainer, and Respondent deposited the check in his operating account. Respondent then used those funds to pay himself, his office rent, and expenses for other cases. On October 18, 2018, Respondent filed in federal court, pursuant to the local rule, answers to interrogatories indicating no expert witness had been retained. By May 2019, the case had fully settled. Respondent prepared and reviewed a disbursement sheet with A.S.'s guardian and obtained authorization to settle. Because A.S. was a minor, the settlement required court approval. Respondent filed a motion for approval of the settlement in federal court and included a copy of the disbursement sheet as an exhibit. In the motion, Respondent represented to the federal court that he incurred $2,500 in expenses for an "Expert Witness/File Consult," along with a $160 expense for service of process, administrative costs of $150, and $111.03 in costs for another co-counsel. In total, Respondent sought court approval of a disbursement of $8,000 for attorney fees and $3,101.35 in expenses. However, Respondent's financial records reveal he incurred only a $60 process service fee, and there was no contractual basis in the relevant attorney- client engagement agreement for a $150 administrative fee. Nevertheless, Respondent's bank records demonstrate that he transferred the entire amount of fees and costs to his operating account and used those funds for his personal and business use. Respondent did not disburse the agreed-upon split of the attorney's fees to W.L. and did not promptly pay costs to third parties. Respondent admits his conduct in this matter violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.5(c) (requiring that a contingency fee agreement must clearly notify the client of any expenses the client is expected to pay); Rule 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver to a client or third person any funds that person is entitled to receive); and Rule 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Matter B In November 2018, Respondent and co-counsel S.L.L.F. began joint representation of an incarcerated individual S.M. as a plaintiff in a personal injury case. On January 14, 2019, S.M. accepted a settlement offer of $27,500. On February 13, 2019, Respondent deposited the $27,500 check into his firm's trust account but did not disburse any funds to S.M. Instead, Respondent used those settlement proceeds for personal and business use. By July 2019, Respondent's trust account balance was below $27,500, and by August 2020, Respondent's trust account balance was $50. On July 26, 2021, the Receiver submitted information to ODC indicating Respondent had failed to disburse settlement proceeds to his client, and ODC issued a notice of investigation on August 4, 2021. On August 17, 2021, Respondent paid all amounts owed to S.M. and S.L.L.F. from Respondent's personal funds. On September 21, 2021, Respondent responded to the notice of investigation and represented that he had turned over S.M.'s entire case file to the Receiver on August 19, 2021. However, the case file Respondent provided the Receiver did not contain a letter notifying S.M. of Respondent's interim suspension as required by Rule 30(a), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Respondent later provided ODC with letters that were not included in the case file given to the Receiver but that Respondent represents were mailed to S.M. and S.L.L.F. within two days of his November 3, 2020 interim suspension. Although these letters advised S.M. and S.L.L.F. of the still-outstanding need to disburse the settlement proceeds to S.M., Respondent represents that he forgot to notify the Receiver of the outstanding disbursements when he turned over his files and law office accounts to the Receiver in November and December 2020. Respondent admits his conduct in this matter violated Rule 30(g), RLDE (requiring a suspended lawyer to cooperate and comply with the Receiver's requests regarding client files and law office accounts), as well as the following Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold funds belonging to others in account separate from the lawyer's own business and personal funds); Rule 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver to a client or third person any funds that person is entitled to receive); and Rule 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Matter C Around 6:30 p.m. on December 10, 2019, G.H., a personal process server retained by opposing counsel, attempted to serve Respondent at Respondent's home with notice of an emergency hearing in a domestic matter in which Respondent was an attorney of record. At the time, Respondent was hosting a dinner party with guests who were socializing on Respondent's front porch. G.H. walked up and greeted Respondent's guests. G.H. asked for Respondent and Respondent's guests advised G.H. that Respondent was down the driveway at the back of the house. G.H. proceeded in that direction, and the guests returned to socializing on the front porch. G.H. continued down the driveway and approached Respondent, who was walking up the driveway and talking on the telephone. Respondent ended the call and continued walking by G.H. without acknowledging him. Respondent entered his home briefly and exited through a side door with a handgun drawn on G.H. Respondent shouted commands at G.H. to put his hands on a car in the driveway. G.H. did not immediately identify himself, but after complying with Respondent's commands at gunpoint, G.H. identified himself as a process server. Respondent told G.H. to hand him the papers, but G.H. refused to lower his hands to remove the papers out of fear of being shot. G.H. asked one of Respondent's guests to remove the paperwork from G.H.'s pocket. The guest removed the papers and gave them to Respondent. Respondent read the papers, apologized to G.H. and hugged him. G.H. left the property and contacted police, who responded and investigated but did not bring charges against Respondent. Respondent admits his conduct in this matter violated Rule 8.4(e), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). Matter D Around 8:30 p.m. on October 6, 2020, a Charleston City Police Officer (Officer) and a Police Cadet trainee (Cadet) were investigating a noise complaint in the vicinity of Respondent's home in downtown Charleston. Respondent was approximately 30 feet down his driveway which runs along the length of his home. Respondent saw the Cadet on the sidewalk, unholstered his handgun, and advanced toward the Cadet while pointing the gun in the direction of the officers and commanding that the Cadet stop and explain what he was doing there. The Cadet did not enter upon Respondent's driveway or property. After a few paces of advancing toward the Cadet with the firearm extended in front of him, Respondent lowered his handgun to his side and continued advancing toward the Cadet. The Cadet and the Officer ordered Respondent to put the gun down, and Respondent complied. The next day, Respondent was arrested and charged with one felony count of pointing and presenting a firearm at another person pursuant to section 16-23-410 of the South Carolina Code. Respondent timely self-reported his arrest to ODC on October 12, 2000. As noted above, Respondent was placed on interim suspension on November 3, 2020, and the Receiver was appointed to protect his clients' interests the following day. Respondent's criminal charge was subsequently dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Solicitor's Office after Respondent successfully completed a pre-trial intervention program. We find Respondent's conduct in this matter violates Rule 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law). II. Respondent admits his misconduct as set forth above constitutes grounds for discipline under the following Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR: Rule 7(a)(1) (providing a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is a ground for discipline); and Rule 7(a)(5) (providing conduct tending to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law is a ground for discipline). In the Agreement, Respondent agrees to any sanction set forth in Rule 7(b), RLDE, as punishment for his misconduct. As a condition of discipline, Respondent agrees to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. He also agrees to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Trust Account School prior to seeking any reinstatement in the future. In mitigation, Respondent submitted an affidavit setting forth the personal obstacles he overcame early in life to attend law school and become a successful lawyer. He also detailed his current and prior legal and non-legal service to the community, including programs supporting veterans and first responders in particular. Respondent also explained that at the time of the misconduct at issue, he was in the midst of a highly contested and public divorce, was isolated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and had recently realized his solo practice would not survive the economic downturn. As a result, Respondent states that he relied on alcohol as an unhealthy coping mechanism during this time. Respondent also explained that he lived in a transitional area of downtown Charleston and that he had been the victim of a crime on numerous occasions, including experiencing a home invasion by an armed individual while Respondent was in his home. Respondent explained that these incidents gave him a sense of insecurity and victimization and that he instinctively relied on his firearm, which he was licensed to possess and trained to use. Respondent acknowledged that in both gun-related incidents in the Agreement, his conduct created unnecessarily dangerous decisions and that he should have handled them differently. Respondent noted that in the time since these incidents, he has been faced with similar circumstances and handled them differently. Specifically, he witnessed someone stealing the car from his driveway and saw a violent attack in his neighborhood while walking his dog. In each instance, instead of confronting the perpetrator, Respondent remained in or retreated to a place of safety and called the police. As for the practice-related misconduct, Respondent explains that he should have paid more careful attention to the financial and recordkeeping rules and to his obligation to safekeep client funds. Respondent explains that he has voluntarily attended various continuing legal education courses regarding ethics, trust accounting, and law practice management, and that he is now fully aware of how his conduct fell short of his professional obligations. Respondent expresses remorse and regret for his actions. Respondent also explains that he voluntarily sought out counseling for the post-traumatic stress disorder he experienced as a result of being the victim of various acts of violence. He also sought assistance for his alcohol abuse through Lawyers Helping Lawyers and has now been sober since August 3, 2023. Respondent also reports that during the five years he has been on interim suspension, he has encountered various other issues including situational depression, a battle with cancer, a debilitating back injury, and the burden of being a caretaker to an elderly relative. In light of all these factors, Respondent asks the Court to impose a six-month definite suspension retroactive to his interim suspension on November 3, 2020. In seeking this lenient sanction, Respondent emphasizes his lack of prior disciplinary history, his acknowledgement of his mistakes and expression of genuine remorse, his reputation for good character and skill in the law,1 and the length of time he has remained on interim suspension. The Commission on Lawyer Conduct recommends that the Court accept the Agreement and disbar Respondent retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. III. Although we are sensitive to the factors that impacted Respondent's behavior, "[t]his Court has never regarded financial misconduct lightly, particularly when such misconduct concerns expenditure of client funds or other improper use of trust funds." In re Wern, 431 S.C. 643, 649, 849 S.E.2d 898, 901 (2020) (citation and quotations omitted). Accordingly, we find disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Respondent's admitted misconduct. See, e.g., In re Blincow, 445 S.C. 268, 914 S.E.2d 119 (2025) (disbarring an attorney for misappropriating client funds); In re Webb, 444 S.C. 216, 906 S.E.2d 584 (2024) (disbarring an attorney for a pattern of misappropriating client funds); In re Lynn, 439 S.C. 118, 886 S.E.2d 215 (2023) (disbarring an attorney for financial misconduct); and In re Craig, 344 S.C. 646, 545 S.E.2d 823 (2001) (disbarring an attorney who committed financial misconduct and engaged in criminal acts that reflected adversely upon her fitness as an attorney). We accept the Agreement and disbar Respondent from the practice of law in this state retroactive to November 3, 2020, which is the date of his interim suspension. Within fifteen days, Respondent shall surrender his Certificate of Admission to the Practice of Law to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Within thirty days, 1 Attached to his affidavit, Respondent submitted letters from twenty individuals attesting to Respondent's integrity, good character, and skill in the law. Respondent shall pay or enter into a repayment plan with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct to pay the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission. DISBARRED. KITTREDGE, C.J., JAMES, HILL and VERDIN, JJ., concur.