MaRhonda Shatoya Smith - Six-Month Definite Suspension

Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 22, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In the Matter of MaRhonda Shatoya Smith

Supreme Court of South Carolina

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: 2026-000072

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Court imposes a definite suspension.

Combined Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

In the Matter of MaRhonda Shatoya Smith, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2026-000072

Opinion No. 28326
Submitted April 3, 2026 – Filed April 22, 2026

DEFINITE SUSPENSION

Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch, Jr., and
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Phylicia Yvette Christine
Coleman, both of Columbia, for the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel.

Haley Alyse Hubbard, of Ballard & Watson, Attorneys at
Law, of West 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 the imposition of a confidential admonition, a public
reprimand, or a definite suspension of up to six months, along with other
conditions of discipline. We accept the Agreement and impose a six-month
definite suspension. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

I.

Respondent was admitted to practice in 2018 and has no prior disciplinary history.
On April 22, 2023, Respondent was under the influence of alcohol and a patron at
a bar in Greenville. After being asked to leave the premises by Security Guard for
knocking on the bathroom door too loudly, Respondent hit Security Guard in the
face. Bar security video footage shows Respondent then grabbed a glass and
attempted to throw it at another patron, who blocked the glass with his hand
causing the glass to shatter. Respondent was forcibly removed from the bar and
continued to engage in disorderly conduct.

Security Guard flagged down law enforcement outside the bar to report the
incident. An officer explained to Respondent that she was being detained, and she
attempted to pull away from the officer several times. Once Respondent was
placed in handcuffs, she refused to get in the patrol car and continued to be
uncooperative with the officers. An officer attempted to speak with Respondent
again and asked her to sit inside the patrol car. Respondent refused, stepped on the
officer's toe, then struck the officer in the genitals with her knee. With the
assistance of another officer, Respondent was finally placed in the patrol car and
transported to the Greenville County Detention Center.

As a result of this incident, Respondent was charged with the following: (1)
disorderly conduct; (2) interfering with a police officer; (3) assault and battery,
third degree; (4) resisting arrest; (5) assault and battery, second degree; and (6)
wounding a police officer while resisting arrest. Respondent timely self-reported
her arrest to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and was subsequently placed on
interim suspension. In re Smith, 439 S.C. 355, 887 S.E.2d 534 (2023).

On December 11, 2024, Respondent pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of
resisting arrest and entered a plea of no contest to one count of second-degree
assault and battery. She was sentenced to ninety days in prison, suspended upon
her successful completion of the Adult Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Court
Program (MDC). Based on the plea agreement, once Respondent completed
MDC, her guilty plea would be withdrawn, resulting in the dismissal of the charges
to which she pled and making her immediately eligible to apply for expungement.

Respondent successfully completed vocational objectives with the South Carolina
Vocational Rehabilitation Department and two outpatient rehabilitation programs
for alcohol abuse. Respondent also successfully completed the MDC program on
July 15, 2025, resulting in the withdrawal of her pleas and the dismissal of all
criminal charges. Respondent's arrest and criminal records were subsequently
expunged.
II.

In the Agreement, Respondent admits her conduct violated Rule 8.4(b), RPC, Rule
407, SCACR (prohibiting a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's
fitness to practice law). Respondent also admits this violation is a ground for
discipline under Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (providing a violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct constitutes a ground for discipline).

Respondent consents to the imposition of a confidential admonition, a public
reprimand, or a definite suspension of up to six months as a sanction for her
misconduct. Additionally, Respondent agrees to pay, within thirty days, the costs
incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the
Commission on Lawyer Conduct. Respondent also agrees to complete an
assessment with Lawyers Helping Lawyers (LHL) within thirty days, and if
additional services are recommended as a result of that assessment, Respondent
agrees to enter into and comply with the terms of a one-year monitoring contract
with LHL, under which she shall report quarterly to the Commission.

In mitigation, Respondent submitted an affidavit acknowledging the seriousness
and wrongfulness of her misconduct, expressing remorse for her actions, and
emphasizing how much she would value a second chance to practice law.
Respondent also sets forth, with exhibits, her struggles with anxiety, depression,
severe grief, and addiction, as well as the substantial and effective efforts she has
made towards healing her mental health and rehabilitating her alcohol use disorder.

III.

We find Respondent's misconduct warrants a definite suspension. Accordingly, we
accept the Agreement, and as a sanction for her misconduct, we suspend
Respondent from the practice of law for a period of six months retroactive to May
17, 2023, which is the date of her interim suspension. Within thirty days,
Respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this
matter by ODC and the Commission.

Respondent shall also complete an assessment with LHL within thirty days. If
additional services are recommended as a result of the assessment, Respondent
shall enter into and comply with the terms of a monitoring contract with LHL for a
period of one year. The terms of this contract shall include, among other things, an
ongoing relationship with a treatment provider and a monitor designated by LHL.
In connection with this monitoring contract, Respondent shall submit reports to the
Commission as set forth in detail in the terms of the Agreement.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

KITTREDGE, C.J., FEW, JAMES, HILL and VERDIN, JJ., concur.