Definite Suspension and Remedial Compliance Conditions for Misrepresentation, Social-Media Confidentiality Breach, and False Affidavit/Notarization Failures

1. Introduction

In the Matter of Tasha Jean Kotz (S.C. Sup. Ct., Opinion No. 28317, filed Feb. 18, 2026) is an attorney discipline decision arising from three separate matters of practice-related misconduct in family court litigation. The Respondent, admitted in 2017 with no prior discipline, entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) under Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE).

The core issues were whether Respondent (1) misrepresented facts to opposing counsel in seeking continuances by reusing a prior photograph of positive COVID-19 tests, (2) improperly revealed client-confidential information in public Facebook comments responding to a negative review, and (3) filed an affidavit bearing an improper signature and defective notarization and then failed to promptly correct the record with the family court.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Court accepted the parties’ discipline-by-consent agreement and imposed a six-month definite suspension. In addition to suspension, the Court required specific compliance conditions focused on preventing recurrence, including payment of costs, completion of notary training (including viewing the Secretary of State’s notary webinar), adoption of a detailed written staff training program on South Carolina notarization law, an annual internal notarization review meeting, and eight additional CLE hours (four in law office management/staff supervision and four in litigation ethics).

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The opinion does not rely on or cite prior South Carolina disciplinary case law by name. Instead, it proceeds primarily through the governing regulatory framework: the Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 407, SCACR) and the RLDE (Rule 413, SCACR), applied to the admitted facts in the consent agreement.

In that sense, the “authorities” doing the work here are rule-based rather than precedent-based: the Court treats the Rules as direct, enforceable standards and uses the consent mechanism under Rule 21, RLDE to resolve discipline efficiently while still imposing a public, precedential sanction (a definite suspension) and targeted remedial conditions.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is structured around (i) the proven/admitted misconduct across three matters, (ii) the specific rule violations admitted, and (iii) calibration of sanction in light of both seriousness and mitigation.

1) Matter A: Continuances and misrepresentation

  • Conduct: Respondent sought continuances in three separate cases, each time sending opposing counsel a photograph of positive COVID-19 tests as proof. Investigation determined the same photograph was reused, with metadata showing it was taken well before the later hearing dates.
  • Rules applied:
    • Rule 4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others)
    • Rule 8.4(d) (dishonesty or misrepresentation)
    • Rule 8.4(e) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice)
  • Reasoning: Even when a lawyer’s underlying concern (health/safety) may be legitimate, the disciplinary system treats accuracy in representations to opposing counsel as non-negotiable. The metadata detail underscored that the issue was not mere imprecision but objectively verifiable falsity.

2) Matter B: Public disclosure of client information on social media

  • Conduct: Respondent replied to a former client’s negative Facebook review by referencing case facts and posting a photograph (apparently depicting the client and a paramour), coupled with statements about custody outcomes and social media conduct.
  • Rule applied: Rule 1.9(c)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a former client).
  • Reasoning: The opinion reflects an uncompromising view that “self-defense” in an online forum does not justify disclosure. The confidentiality obligation persists beyond the end of representation, and public platforms magnify harm because disclosure is broad, durable, and difficult to retract.

3) Matter C: False affidavit, defective notarization, and failure to correct the record

  • Conduct: Respondent filed an affidavit that was improperly signed (by the client’s mother) and notarized (by Respondent’s husband at a later date). After being alerted, Respondent did not adequately investigate and did not promptly correct the filing with the court, instead telling successor counsel it needed correction.
  • Rules applied:
    • Rule 1.1 (competence)
    • Rule 3.3(a)(1) (duty to correct a false statement of material fact to the tribunal)
    • Rule 3.3(a)(3) (prohibition on offering false evidence)
    • Rule 5.3(c)(2) (responsibility for non-lawyer assistant conduct that would violate the Rules if done by a lawyer)
    • Rule 8.4(e) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice)
  • Reasoning: The Court treated the affidavit episode as a direct integrity-of-the-process problem: a sworn document with an inauthentic signature and defective notarization is not a technical defect—it is a misrepresentation to the tribunal and opposing party. The failure to personally correct the court record implicated Rule 3.3, which prioritizes candor to the tribunal over convenience, client pressure, or assumptions about the credibility of an accuser.

4) Sanction selection: why a six-month definite suspension

The Court explicitly balanced seriousness against mitigation. Aggravating features included repeated misrepresentation (Matter A), public disclosure of client information (Matter B), and a sworn-filing/notarization integrity failure coupled with inadequate remediation (Matter C). Mitigating features included Respondent’s lack of prior discipline, acceptance of responsibility, expression of remorse, and voluntary remedial steps (notarization training program and ethics education).

The resulting “rule” communicated by this opinion is practical and consequential: when misconduct spans honesty to counsel, confidentiality to clients, and candor to the tribunal—especially involving sworn filings—the Court will impose a definite suspension (not merely a reprimand) and may pair it with structured operational conditions (training programs, webinars, annual internal reviews, and additional CLE) designed to address the root compliance failures.

C. Impact

  • On continuance practice: Lawyers should expect heightened scrutiny of factual predicates offered to opposing counsel and courts, including digital proof that can be tested through metadata or other forensic indicators. Reuse of “proof” across cases can be treated as intentional misrepresentation even if the lawyer has a plausible general reason for delay.
  • On lawyer social-media behavior: The decision reinforces that responding publicly to criticism is not a safe harbor for disclosure. Even limited references can qualify as “information relating to the representation,” and posting images raises the risk of compounding the breach.
  • On affidavit/notary controls in law offices: The opinion signals that notarization failures are not merely clerical. They are professionalism and court-integrity issues that can trigger suspension and mandated compliance architecture (written training, annual reviews, and additional CLE).
  • On discipline-by-consent outcomes: The Court’s acceptance shows that negotiated resolutions can still yield meaningful public sanctions and detailed prospective safeguards, providing a template for “rehabilitative” conditions in discipline orders.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Rule 21, RLDE)
A negotiated resolution in which the lawyer admits misconduct and agrees to specified discipline and conditions, subject to the Supreme Court’s approval.
Definite suspension
A time-limited removal of the lawyer’s right to practice law (here, six months), typically with compliance steps required before or during reinstatement processes.
Metadata
Embedded digital information in a file (such as when a photo was taken). In this case, it corroborated that the photo predated the later hearings by many months.
Candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3)
A lawyer’s duty to be truthful with the court and to correct false statements or evidence the lawyer previously presented. It is a higher duty than ordinary advocacy.
Rule 60 motion
A procedural request seeking relief from an order or filing based on problems like fraud or misrepresentation. Here, it was invoked after the allegedly fraudulent affidavit was filed.
Notarization requirements
Notarization is intended to deter fraud by confirming identity, willingness, and proper execution at the time of signing. “Backdated” or later notarization and non-signer execution defeat that purpose.

5. Conclusion

In the Matter of Tasha Jean Kotz underscores that attorney discipline in South Carolina will treat (1) misrepresentations used to obtain litigation continuances, (2) retaliatory social-media disclosures of client information, and (3) false or improperly notarized sworn filings—especially when not promptly corrected—as serious threats to the administration of justice. The six-month definite suspension, coupled with detailed notary training, internal compliance programs, and additional ethics/management CLE, signals a remedial but firm approach: professional rehabilitation is encouraged, but only after meaningful public accountability and concrete safeguards are imposed.