The South Carolina Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded Mark Justin Josephs, a Myrtle Beach attorney, for professional misconduct involving billing discrepancies and failure to maintain proper financial records. The court issued Opinion No. 28316 on Feb. 11, 2026, accepting an Agreement for Discipline by Consent between Josephs and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Josephs, who was admitted to practice law in South Carolina in 1998, had maintained a clean disciplinary record for 25 years before this action. The misconduct came to light following a May 2023 audit of the law firm where Josephs practiced at the time. The audit revealed various billing discrepancies across numerous cases Josephs had handled and determined that he had failed to maintain copies of all required financial records.
According to the court's findings, the auditor determined that Josephs owed a total of $25,237 in refunds to clients due to the billing irregularities. The court noted that by July 2023, Josephs had issued refunds to all clients identified in the auditor's report, demonstrating his cooperation in remedying the financial harm to his clients.
However, Josephs's response to the subsequent investigation proved problematic. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel continued investigating the matter throughout 2024, but Josephs failed to respond completely to several requests for information and documentation from the disciplinary authority. This lack of cooperation became an additional component of the misconduct charges.
In the Agreement for Discipline by Consent, Josephs admitted his conduct violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct under Rule 407 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules. Specifically, he acknowledged violating Rule 1.5(a), which prohibits attorneys from charging or collecting unreasonable fees or unreasonable amounts for expenses. He also violated Rule 1.5(c), which requires contingent fee agreements to notify clients of any expenses they will be expected to pay.
Additionally, Josephs admitted to violating Rule 8.1(b), which requires lawyers to respond fully to lawful inquiries from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. This rule is designed to ensure attorneys cooperate with disciplinary investigations and maintain transparency in the regulatory process.
The case proceeded under Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, which allows for discipline by consent agreements. This process enables attorneys to acknowledge misconduct and agree to appropriate sanctions without proceeding to a full disciplinary hearing. The South Carolina Supreme Court accepted the agreement and imposed the public reprimand as recommended.
A public reprimand represents a formal disciplinary sanction that becomes part of an attorney's permanent record and is published by the court. While less severe than suspension or disbarment, a public reprimand serves as both punishment and a warning to other members of the legal profession about the consequences of similar misconduct.
The case was handled by Disciplinary Counsel William M. Blitch Jr. and Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Phylicia Yvette Christine Coleman, both from Columbia, representing the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Josephs represented himself in the proceedings, appearing pro se before the court.
The disciplinary action highlights the importance of proper financial management and client billing practices in legal practice. Attorneys are required to maintain accurate records of their fees and expenses, ensuring that charges to clients are reasonable and properly documented. The case also underscores the obligation of attorneys to cooperate fully with disciplinary investigations.
For clients who may have been affected by similar billing issues, the resolution demonstrates that the disciplinary system can provide remedies. In this case, all identified clients received full refunds for the billing discrepancies, totaling more than $25,000.
The timing of the case, with the audit occurring in May 2023 and the final court opinion issued in February 2026, reflects the thorough nature of disciplinary investigations and the time required to resolve such matters through the consent agreement process.
Josephs continues to practice law, and the public reprimand serves as the conclusion of this disciplinary matter. The case serves as a reminder to legal professionals about the critical importance of maintaining proper billing practices and cooperating fully with regulatory authorities when issues arise.