In the Matter of Louis David Nettles

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court In the Matter of Louis David Nettles, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2026-000394 Opinion No. 28354 Submitted October 16, 2026 – Filed November 12, 2026 PUBLIC REPRIMAND Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch, Jr., and Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Connor J. Parker, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Louis David Nettles, of Summerville, 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 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 the imposition of a confidential admonition or a public reprimand. We accept the Agreement and issue a public reprimand. I. Respondent was admitted to practice in 1979 and has no prior disciplinary history. This Agreement resolves two pending matters concerning the same facts and circumstances, which are addressed collectively below. On December 7, 2018, Respondent was assigned by an auto insurance carrier to defend a personal injury lawsuit filed on November 15, 2018, against an insured motorist. Respondent requested an extension by email to file an answer but sent it to the wrong email address and never followed up with the plaintiff's counsel regarding the extension request. The plaintiff's law firm emailed Respondent on December 12, 2018, about scheduling a deposition of Respondent's client, but Respondent did not respond. The plaintiff's firm also called Respondent's office on December 13, 2018, and left a voicemail, but Respondent did not respond. Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint. Respondent admits he failed to properly calendar the deadline. On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for default, and an order of default was entered against Respondent's client. Respondent learned of his error when the motion for default was filed. Respondent notified his malpractice carrier, and on April 4, 2019, Respondent filed a motion for relief from the entry of default under Rule 55(c), SCRCP. 1 On April 24, 2019, Respondent received notice that a deposition of a medical expert would be held May 7, 2019. Respondent did not attend the deposition. In July 2019, Respondent missed another deposition of a second medical expert, for which he received proper notice. Sometime after Respondent filed his motion for relief from default but before the hearing, Respondent met with the client to discuss the status of the case and the consequences for the client having a judgment against him. Respondent and the client discussed the client's assets and the exemptions available to him under the law. Respondent represents it was clear to him that the client had no assets above the exemption limits. Respondent advised the client that he believed the plaintiff would likely seek an assignment of the client's malpractice claim against Respondent and/or the insurance company. At a second meeting with the client on August 5, 2019, Respondent and the client discussed entering an agreement to settle the client's potential malpractice claim against Respondent and the insurance company. Respondent told the client orally that the client would need independent legal advice. However, Respondent did not provide the client with this advice in writing. The client told Respondent that he knew an attorney personally who he would consult for advice. The client sought the advice of that attorney, who reached out to Respondent about the matter. Respondent emailed the proposed settlement agreement to the attorney. The attorney replied to Respondent's email indicating that he had a brief conversation with the client but needed to discuss and investigate the matter further before the 1 Through a series of motions and hearings, the entry of default was set aside then subsequently reinstated. attorney could advise the client, and that once the attorney was back in the office, he would set up a time with Respondent to discuss the matter further. Respondent acknowledges that the attorney's email outlining a course of action, including investigating the waiver, advising the client, and contacting Respondent to discuss the matter, reasonably established that the attorney represented the client with respect to the agreement to settle the client's malpractice claim. On August 15, 2019, the client told Respondent that the attorney had reviewed the settlement agreement and said it was acceptable to sign. 2 Respondent neither communicated with the attorney nor made any effort to notify or confirm the client's assertion with the attorney. 3 Respondent and the client signed the settlement agreement, which contained a provision stating the client had consulted with the other attorney before signing the agreement. II. Respondent admits that his failure to timely file an answer and failure to attend the two depositions violated Rule 1.3, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (requiring diligence). Respondent further admits his failure to advise the client in writing of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel for advice about settling the potential malpractice claim violated Rule 1.8(h)(2), RPC (prohibiting a lawyer from settling a malpractice claim with a client unless the client is advised in writing to seek independent counsel and is given an opportunity to do so). Respondent also admits his direct communication with the client regarding the malpractice settlement agreement after receiving notice that the client was represented by independent counsel constituted a violation of Rule 4.2, RPC (prohibiting communication with a person represented by another lawyer about the subject of the representation absent consent of the other lawyer). Lastly, Respondent acknowledges his misconduct is grounds for discipline under Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (providing a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is grounds for discipline). In the Agreement, Respondent consents to the imposition of a confidential 2 In an affidavit supporting the plaintiff's motion to vacate the order setting aside the default, the attorney denied instructing the client to sign the waiver. 3 Respondent represents he had no reason to doubt the client's assertion, as ten days had passed since Respondent sent the proposed agreement to the attorney, and the agreement is only 600 words in length. admonition or a public reprimand as sanction for his misconduct. Respondent further agrees to pay costs within thirty days of the imposition of discipline and agrees to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School within one year of the imposition of a sanction. III. We find Respondent's misconduct warrants a public reprimand. See In re Mercer, 443 S.C. 543, 905 S.E.2d 397 (2024) (publicly reprimanding a lawyer for failing to act with reasonable promptness and diligence in representing a client); cf. In re Powell, 380 S.C. 115, 669 S.E.2d 89 (2008) (publicly reprimanding an attorney for misconduct arising from a real estate transaction, including asking the client to sign an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability for malpractice without proper notice or an opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel in violation of Rule 1.8(h)(1), RPC). Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand Respondent for his misconduct. Within thirty days, Respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. Within one year, Respondent shall complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and promptly forward proof of completion to the Commission. PUBLIC REPRIMAND. KITTREDGE, C.J., JAMES, HILL and VERDIN, JJ., concur.