STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF HAMPTON FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Michael “Tony” Satterfield and Brian Harriott, C/A No. 2021-CP-25-00298

Plaintiffs, Priority Matter

Under Rule 40(h), SCRCP
vs.
DEFENDANT MURDAUGH’S
Richard Alexander “Alex” Murdaugh, Chad EMERGENCY MOTION
Westendorf, Palmetto State Bank, Corey FOR A GAG ORDER AND
Fleming, and Moss, Kuhn & Fleming, P.A., SANCTIONS
AS TO ATTORNEY ERIC BLAND
Defendants.

Defendant Richard Alexander “Alex” Murdaugh, through undersigned counsel, pursuant

to Rule 3.6 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, hereby moves for a gag order

as to Attorney Eric Bland, counsel for Plaintiffs, prohibiting Mr. Bland from making any further

statements to the media concerning Defendant or his lawyers while this action remains pending

that do not fall within the exceptions allowed by Rule 3.6(b) of the Rules of Professional

Conduct. 1 Defendant also moves for sanctions, including an award of costs and reasonable

attorney’s fees incurred in this motion, and referral of Mr. Bland’s conduct to the Office of

Disciplinary counsel. Undersigned counsel certifies that consultation prior to filing this motion

would serve no useful purpose.

I. Background

Defendant Richard Alex Murdaugh is a lawyer and formerly a partner at the law firm

Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth, and Detrick, P.A. (PMPED). He is also a recovering opioid

1
Mr. Murdaugh does not move for a gag order regarding Plaintiffs’ other counsel of record in this
matter. Nor does he seek a gag order for his counsel or counsel representing his co-Defendants.
Unlike Mr. Bland, these lawyers have not repeatedly made prejudicial statements to news media
about this this proceeding. Mr. Murdaugh does not, however, object to a gag order that applies
equally to his lawyers and lawyers for other parties.
addict. Following the murder of his wife Maggie and son Paul on June 7, 2021, Mr. Murdaugh’s

opioid use spiraled out of control. Also during that time, PMPED began to investigate missing

fees that Mr. Murdaugh earned from cases with attorneys outside PMPED. On September 3,

2021, PMPED confronted Mr. Murdaugh about the missing fees. Mr. Murdaugh admitted to

misconduct and resigned from PMPED. The following day, Mr. Murdaugh was shot in the head

by Curtis Eddie Smith, his opioid supplier, in a failed assisted suicide attempt.

Mr. Murdaugh thereafter began in-patient drug rehabilitation. On September 15, 2021, he

learned warrants had been issued in Hampton County for his arrest on charges of insurance fraud,

conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, and making a false police report, all arising from his failed

suicide attempt. The next day, Mr. Murdaugh voluntarily surrendered. He was granted a personal

recognizance bond and allowed to continue his addiction treatment program in Orlando, Florida.

Also on September 15, 2021, this action was filed. Plaintiffs allege Defendants conspired

to steal proceeds from the settlement of claims arising from the death of Mr. Murdaugh’s longtime

housekeeper, Gloria Satterfield, at Mr. Murdaugh’s Colleton County residence. The causes of

action asserted against Mr. Murdaugh are equitable accounting, civil conspiracy, and conversion.

Defendant Palmetto State Bank has asserted crossclaims against Mr. Murdaugh for equitable

accounting, money had and received, conversion, and negligent misrepresentation.

On October 14, 2021, Mr. Murdaugh was arrested on charges of obtaining property under

false pretense as he left the rehabilitation center in Florida. The charges arise from law

enforcement’s investigation into Plaintiffs’ allegations in this case that Mr. Murdaugh

misappropriated settlement funds. Although he was charged only with stealing money by false

pretense, he was denied bail. On November 10, 2021, he petitioned the South Carolina Supreme

Court for a writ of habeas corpus based on the violation of his constitutional right to bail. See

2
S.C. Const. Art. I § 15 (“All persons shall be, before conviction, bailable by sufficient sureties,

but bail may be denied to persons charged with capital offenses or offenses punishable by life

imprisonment, or with violent offenses defined by the General Assembly . . . .”).

On October 22, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for the appointment of co-receivers under South

Carolina Code § 15-65-10(1). That motion was simultaneously made in other civil actions against

Mr. Murdaugh and was granted on November 4, 2021 by the Honorable Daniel D. Hall in the

case Renee S. Beach, et al. v. Gregory M. Parker, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-CP-25-00111 (S.C.

Ct. Com. Pl. (Hampton Cty.)). John T. Lay and Peter M. McCoy have been appointed co-receivers

and all assets held by Mr. Murdaugh and his surviving son Buster Murdaugh have been placed

under the co-receivers’ authority.

On November 11, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel announced they had reached a settlement with

all Defendants except Mr. Murdaugh.

On November 18, 2021, Mr. Murdaugh was indicted by the State Grand Jury on 27 counts

of financial crimes including 9 counts related to this matter.

II. Legal Standard

The Court has authority to restrict extrajudicial statements of attorneys appearing before

it. South Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(a) prohibits a lawyer participating in

litigation from making out-of-court statements that the lawyer knows or should know will

prejudice the proceedings. The Rule provides,

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or

litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer
knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public
communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an
adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

Exceptions are made for identifying the claims and defendants in a case, disclosing information

already in the public record, stating that an investigation is in progress, stating the schedule or

3
result of steps in the litigation, requests for assistance in gathering evidence, and warning of

imminent danger from a person involved in the litigation. Rule 3.6(b) RPC, Rule 407, SCACR.

This Rule is identical to Rule 3.6 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional

Conduct. The Model Rule is adopted either verbatim or in substantially similar language in every

jurisdiction in the United States except New Mexico and Virginia, which have somewhat different

rules concerning extrajudicial statements. See Variations of the ABA Model Rules of Professional

Conduct, Am. Bar Ass’n, CPR Policy Implementation Comm., Sept. 1, 2021. The United States

Supreme Court has held a rule limiting attorney extrajudicial statements, like Rule 3.6, does not

violate the First Amendment if it “applies only to speech that is substantially likely to have a

materially prejudicial effect; it is neutral as to points of view, applying equally to all attorneys

participating in a pending case; and it merely postpones the attorneys’ comments until after the

trial.” Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1076 (1991).

III. Argument

A. Mr. Bland has made and continues to make numerous statements to news media in
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

A “trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial

pretrial publicity.” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979). In this case, a gag

order is necessary because Mr. Bland has made and continues to make numerous statements in

violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that will substantially prejudice these proceedings.

Mr. Bland provides the news media with a constant stream of ad hominem attacks on Mr.

Murdaugh, an opposing party, and his counsel whenever there is a new court filing or case

development for the deliberate purpose of prejudicing the adjudicative process.

A small sampling of Mr. Bland’s statements is given below.

4
1. Mr. Bland advocating in news media for criminal charges against Defendant.

“The longer (Alex Murdaugh) gets to sit in a treatment facility, and trys to get
himself better, he could possibly still commit more crimes by getting rid of some
of the money or figuring out a way that it can’t be traced or found,” Bland said.

“(Alex) needs to eat from the same trough of justice that every other citizen in our
state eats from,” Bland said. “It’s patently obvious, exactly what happened
through the documents that are now in the public domain, that he stole $3.6 million
from my clients. More importantly, his own law firm, in a public pleading, has said
he did it to other clients through the same exact method.”

“If Alex was arrested for this, it would send a strong message to all those that he
may be working with,” Bland said. “It would show that our state is serious and
we’re going to hold these people accountable. But it’s starting to look like a joke.”

“We have our feet on peoples [sic] throats who are responsible and we will not let
up,” Bland said.

Mandy Matney, Murdaugh Murders: Why Hasn’t Alex Murdaugh Been Arrested
In The Satterfield Scandal?, FITSNews, Oct. 7, 2021.

2. Mr. Bland telling the jury pool that Defendant has committed many crimes.

“I absolutely believe that before this is over that the federal government will bring
charges,” Bland said. “But I do believe he’s going to get charged with a whole
host of mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, conspiracy to
commit fraud and failure to file income taxes.”

“I don’t think he’s gonna be the only one,” I don’t believe that, that they’re not
looking at others and potentially people at the bank and his law firm and
everywhere else. I think everything is on the table. I think Alex is going to squeal
like a stuck pig. I think that’s the only currency he has left.”

Mandy Matney, ‘There’s No Bottom To Him’: Unpacking Alex Murdaugh’s Latest

Charges, FITSNews, Oct. 15, 2021.

3. Mr. Bland implicitly accusing Defendant of murdering Gloria Satterfield.

“They [Ms. Satterfield’s sons] want to believe that their mother died accidentally,”
Bland said. “But then [.].. it’s a stark reality that this is a really bad person. Alex
Murdaugh is a really, really, really bad person. That’s the bottom line. That’s the
tough pill to swallow…. There’s no bottom to him.”

Mandy Matney, ‘There’s No Bottom To Him’: Unpacking Alex Murdaugh’s Latest

Charges, FITSNews, Oct. 15, 2021.

5
4. Mr. Bland cheering the appointment of co-receivers for Defendant’s assets.

“This is essentially going to lock Alex to the point he won’t even be able to buy a
cup of coffee.”

“The receiver will unwind every single transaction that Alex has done since 2015
when he opened the account and he will go to the people who have money (from
the settlement) and they will have to disgorge that money,” Bland said. “Dick
Harpootlian and Jim Griffin should look long and hard on whether they want to
start spending the attorney fees they are getting (from the Murdaughs).”

Mandy Matney, Attorneys File ‘Bombshell’ Motions To Lock Up And Recover

Alex and Buster Murdaugh’s Assets, FITSNews, Oct. 22, 2021.

5. Mr. Bland attacking a confession of judgment by Defendant in another case.

“Alex and his family continue to confirm that they have and always will game the
system,” Bland said. “They don’t think decency and the rules apply to them.”

Mandy Matney, Sham Lawsuit? Alex Murdaugh Confesses Judgment Soon After
Brother Sued Him For $90K Debt, FITSNews, Nov. 4, 2021.

6. Mr. Bland attacking Defendant when commenting on the appointment of co-receivers.

“This is a clear message that the justice system has had enough of Alex
Murdaugh,” Bland said following the ruling. “Enough of the games. Enough of
the lawyer machinations that he wants to employ.”

Will Folks, Murdaugh Murders Saga: Alex Murdaugh’s Court-Appointed

Receivers Move To Block Shady Backdoor Maneuvering, FITSNews, Nov. 6,
2021.

7. Mr. Bland vilifying Defendant when commenting on the denial of bond for Defendant
in the related criminal matter.

“Since the original bond hearing Alex Murdaugh has taken financial actions which
clearly show that he has no respect for the judicial process, legitimate creditors
and victims of his criminal activities and that the ordinary rules do not apply to
him,” Bland said. “These financial transactions and how they were manipulated
by Alex Murdaugh and those close to him show that in addition he is a flight risk.”

Will Folks, Murdaugh Murders Saga: Alex Murdaugh Staying Behind Bars As
Judge Denies Bond A Second Time, FITSNews, Nov. 10, 2021.

8. Mr. Bland disparaging Defendant’s habeas petition to the South Carolina Supreme
Court.

“It’s a desperate act by a desperate man,” Bland said.

6
 “Judge Newman is the one who’s hearing all the information about other
investigations that aren’t just Satterfield-related” Bland said. “And he has his
finger on the pulse and is privy to a lot of different things that are having to do
with the grand jury, or whether they’re issuing search warrants or different
subpoenas. He’s made the calculated decision, you know, after analyzing it and
giving it a lot of thought — that he still represents a danger to the community and
to himself. So just because they submitted an evaluation from a psychiatrist, who
says that he’s an opioid addict, and that he was on his way to recovery, that doesn’t
mean that he gets bond.”

Mandy Matney, ‘A Desperate Act By A Desperate Man’: Attorneys Petition To Get

Alex Murdaugh Out Of Jail, FITSNews, Nov. 10, 2021.

9. Mr. Bland attacking Defendant in news media after settling with his co-defendants in
this case.

Bland stated that, after Murdaugh allegedly stole the Satterfield heirs’ settlement,
one of Satterfield’s sons was struggling financially and lost his family home to
repossession.

“Alex knew about this, and let it happen, and it was absolutely despicable,” Bland
said. “This caused Brian, the vulnerable adult, to be pushed out onto the street.
That fact alone keeps my oven hot every day.”

“The gig is up on Alex Murdaugh—whatever power he had before, and

relationships he had before, are toast.”

Michael DeWitt, Murdaugh Latest Developments: Palmetto State Bank, PMPED

settle with Satterfields, Greenville News, Nov. 15, 2021.

10. Mr. Bland using news media to argue against a motion filed in this case by Defendant.

Eric Bland, an attorney who with Ronnie Richter represents the Satterfield heirs,
said Wednesday he was astonished that Murdaugh now claims settlements by other
parties in the case let him off the hook. “You mean Alex Murdaugh gets to keep
stolen money because the heirs were so dogged in making other people pay?”

Bland added, “This motion says, ‘Yes my guy may have stolen the money, but I’m
declaring the Satterfields are paid in full because somebody else paid the
obligation, and therefore my guy (Murdaugh) gets to keep the stolen funds. Think
about how tone deaf and arrogant that is.”

Kacen Bayless & John Monk, Alex Murdaugh says he doesn’t owe money to
Satterfield heirs, court filing shows, The Island Packet, Nov. 17, 2021.

7
 Eric Bland, who serves as co-council [sic] for the Satterfield Estate, called the
move repugnant. Bland said that Murdaugh’s argument that he can keep the
money he stole because other parties paid the Satterfield family back is beyond
offensive.

“I never expected [it]. Just because you can make an argument doesn’t mean you
should make it. It’s an act of a desperate man to say ‘well, I stole the money and
the Satterfields did such a great job in forcing other people to pay, that I shouldn’t
have to pay… I just get to go home and keep the money I stole.'”

Chase Laudenslager, Murdaugh attorneys move to dismiss Satterfield lawsuit

because others paid back funds Murdaugh allegedly stole, WJBF News Channel
6, Nov. 17, 2021.

11. Mr. Bland’s lengthy diatribe regarding Defendant and his counsel in a nationally
distributed podcast interview.

“Lady Justice has been busy in past month for him. Since 2015 he’s been practicing
stealing and not practicing law and you he has… You got work to do that. That
takes some thought. That takes some work and he can’t be a lawyer and a thief like
that and do it both well, so he he chose to do thievery well.

He gave such a black eye to this state. I think it’s a combination of his, you know,
his prosecutorial background. It’s a little bit of a payback you know probably
against you know in a way his law firm and how they have, you know, created this
what’s called the judicial hellhole there . . . you know whether there’s payback or
I think it’s just the state saying we don’t want lawyer stealing like this and certainly
not a prosecutor who comes from a long line of prosecutors. We’re gonna establish
law and order the way it should be and its happening. I mean it is you know like
we said in our statement this morning you know when the dam of justice breaks it
starts to come like a mighty river.

I can tell you that the charges are not the end. There there are so many more victims
victims that I’ve seen I've seen the checks. So there are more victims there there
are more charges coming and you know it’s it’s a strong statement that should
really cause Harpootlian and Griffin to really stop because the state is not
expending all of these resources and all these all this time just to turn it over to the
feds at the at the end of all this. The State of South Carolina is making a statement
here.

Listen, like I said it to you a couple weeks ago. There’s no bottom to him. He’s
you know morally decrepit and proves it again today. He stole money from a
policeman. He’s a solicitor stealing money from a client that that’s not bad enough
let’s just go a little deeper and steal from a policeman who does who make a lot of
money to begin with. He’s gonna go you know everybody talks about Larry Gene
Bell and all these other people Pee Wee Gaskins and and they’re killers there’s no

8
question about it, and there is a difference right now, but he is as morally bankrupt
as they are.

As you can tell, I’m a little bit upset here—pissed—not surprising not surprising I
told you he was gonna do it [file a motion to dismiss in this case] but I didn’t
expect the first argument that I get to keep the money because I’m declaring that
the Satterfields have been fully paid. I didn’t think anybody had the set of balls to
actually put that in a pleading: Yes, if I took the money I just keep it because
somebody else repaid it for me.

It’s just another action that you’re scratching you’re left scratching your head and
saying is there a master strategy here or are they [Mr. Murdaugh’s counsel] just
winging it. The failed you know the habeas corpus before the Supreme Court or
going into magistrate court and the deal was already cut for the bail all this stuff
you’re wondering, you know, is he [Mr. Harpootlian] that much smarter than
everybody else he sees this battlefield differently—or, is it really they’re just
winging it? I could see him laughing saying hey this is great I’m gonna make a
motion that says plaintiff doesn’t have any damages because they’ve fully paid.
What he didn’t really think about is what I’m really saying is my thief gets to keep
the money.

Mike Tyson said everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face. They
got punched in the face last month when the bail got denied. They got punched in
the face when Judge Hall granted the motion for a receivership. They got punched
in the face when Judge Newman denied bond for the second time. They’re getting
punched in the face at every turn. It’s not their fault. They didn’t make up the
facts. Now, they chose to dive into this deep end. They didn’t have to. They could
just as easily have said, hey, we’re representing Alex Murdaugh on a limited basis
on this criminal charge dealing with the Labor Day shooting or even the Gloria
Satterfield stuff. But they chose to dive into these civil cases and now that they’re
in it’s gonna be difficult for them to get out.

I don't think there’s a plan by the way. I don’t think there’s this grand strategy that,
you know, Dick sees this field at 30,000 feet and everybody else is down here at
the 5,000-foot level. There are certainly cases that he does and there are certainly
cases that I’ve seen that he has pulled monkeys out of a hat, and you know really
got an amazing result, but it just isn’t gonna happen here. It isn’t going to happen
because he can’t do what he does best, which is leverage relationships and and
good deeds that he’s done over the years and and and good work. You’re not
getting credit for that here. There’s too much sunlight. You’re not—Mandy Matney
is not going to let that happen. No judge is gonna be the judge that signs off on
stuff that happens in the darkness of of a judge’s chamber. It’s not going to happen.
He’s not gonna be able to plead to just one count of obtaining money by false
pretenses and one count of, you know, money laundering and he’s gonna get
three years.

9
It’s not gonna happen, Mandy. The outrage—forget regular people—the bar is not
going to let it happen. We as lawyers are on trial right now and I can’t tell you
how many lawyers, defense lawyers, that used to hate me and still do because I
sue lawyers, Mandy. I get phone calls and emails, “keep up the good work, keep
up the fight.” They want to clean it up. They’re not happy with what happens in
Hampton County when their corporations and defense clients get sued. They’re
not happy with Alex Murdaugh stealing money. I’m not. No lawyer is. It’s a
pollution of our profession

But you did it—you! You uncovered the petition. You wrote the article. You are
the spark that lit the fire. [Unclear] saw your article and went to his sister Ginger
and started asking questions and then the family asked questions and then they
went to Mark Tinsley and then Mark Tinsley sent them to me—but Mandy Matney,
you lit the spark. You took down Alex Murdaugh.

It’s a heavy thought . . . that in your life in your lifetime you did something that
will be transformative, that will be generational, that was the right thing to do. You
changed the world because you’re taking a guy off the street it was not just harming
one person he was harming a lot of different people. This is a serial criminal, a
serial thief, a serial penslinger. I call him a penslinger. You could call him a
gunslinger, I call him a serial penslinger. You do not know that when people don’t
get money and they don’t get treatment for their injuries in personal injury cases.
. . [unclear] . . . but now, you know I was with them yesterday and I will tell you
this: Money has way, obviously, of salving wounds. But they’re smiling because
they do realize that their sister this quote ‘housekeeper’ that everybody likes just
call a housekeeper didn’t die in vain. Mallory Beach didn't die in vain. They were
responsible, their deaths, for bringing down Alex Murdaugh. How many more
people would have continued to victimize?

He is loaded up to, you know, over hundreds of years of time. This is even before
you get to the end of the white-collar crimes. There’s other victims, Mandy. I have
seen the checks that have come from the Murdaugh law firm to Forge. There’s
individual bank accounts that have not been publicly discussed. So, we haven’t got
to the end of the white collar stuff. You haven’t gotten to Cousin Eddie. You have
gotten to to the point of, OK, why is he receiving all these payments? What are
they for? Are those crimes? Are there are there laundering crimes going on there?
You haven’t gotten to the Maggie and Paul killings—not that he had anything to
do with it, but somebody’s gonna have to determine and make a final statement on
how they occurred. It’s just not going to sit out there that they got shot and killed
and the crimes are going to go unsolved. This is really serious stuff. And I believe,
after talking with Creighton Waters, that it’s a lot of information this grand jury
was processing and and they’re being given it to them in increment meals, instead
of just throwing it all at them at once, You know it’s a lot to process when you
when you process you know obtaining the money by false pretenses, of computer
crime and a money laundering for this, you know for each separate victim.”

10
 Mandy Matney, Murdaugh Murders Podcast, Ep. 19, Nov. 21, 2021 (transcription
of statements by Eric Bland).

A lawyer’s public statements violate Rule 3.6 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional

Conduct if (1) they are made extrajudicially (2) by a lawyer participating in the litigation, (3) the

lawyer knows or reasonably should know the statements “will be disseminated by means of public

communication,” (4) the statements “will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing

an adjudicative proceeding in the matter,” and (5) none of the exceptions in Rule 3.6(b) apply.

Mr. Bland’s statements above, and his other statements to the media about this case, satisfy each

element of a Rule 3.6 violation. There can be no dispute that statements to news media are

extrajudicial statements. Mr. Bland is attorney of record for Plaintiffs. Mr. Bland knew the

statements to the news media would be disseminated by means of public communication. And,

as shown below, Mr. Bland knows and intends that his statements prejudice this proceeding.

Because no exceptions under Rule 3.6(b) are applicable, Mr. Murdaugh’s motion should be

granted.

B. Mr. Bland knows and intends that his statements prejudice this adjudicative
proceeding.

“Few interests under the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to a fair trial

by impartial jurors, and the State has a substantial interest in preventing officers of the court from

imposing costs on the judicial system and litigants arising from measures, such as a change of

venue, to ensure a fair trial.” Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1031–32. Moreover, because lawyers’ extra-

judicial statements “are likely to be received as especially authoritative,” such statements

especially “pose a threat to the fairness of a pending proceeding.” Id. at 1074. “The capacity of

the jury eventually impaneled to decide the case fairly is influenced by the tone and extent of the

publicity, which is in part, and often in large part, shaped by what attorneys, police, and other

officials do to precipitate news coverage.” Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 554–55

11
(1976). For this reason, “[i]n the United States, the courts have historically regulated admission

to the practice of law before them and exercised the authority to discipline and ultimately to disbar

lawyers whose conduct departed from prescribed standards. ‘Membership in the bar is a privilege

burdened with conditions,’ to use the oft-repeated statement of Cardozo.” Gentile, 501 U.S. at

1066 (quoting Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 281 (1957)). Thus, “the speech of lawyers

representing clients in pending cases may be regulated under a less demanding standard than that

established for regulation of the press.” Id. at 1074.

To assist in deciding whether an extrajudicial statement is prejudicial, the official

comment to Rule 3.6 identifies “certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material

prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury,

a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration.” These subjects

include:

• Comments on “the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a

party”;

• Expressions of “any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or

suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration”;

• “[I]nformation that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be

inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a
substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial”; or

• Stating “the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is
included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation
and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.”

Rule 3.6 RPC, Rule 407 SCRAP, cmt. 5. Though not explicitly stated in the comment, because

until now there was no need to do so, attacks on the character, credibility, or reputation of a party’s

counsel, like such attacks on a party, are a subject “more likely than not to have a material

prejudicial effect ton a proceeding.” See id.

12
1. Mr. Bland’s attacks on Mr. Murdaugh’s character and credibility are intended to
prejudice this proceeding.

As outlined above, Mr. Bland has made a ceaseless barrage of attacks on Mr. Murdaugh’s

character and credibility. He has, inter alia, stated Mr. Murdaugh is “morally decrepit,” a “really,

really bad person,” that “there is no bottom to him,” that he “doesn’t think decency and the rules

apply” to him, that he is a “desperate man,” and that he is “as morally bankrupt” as serial killer

Pee Wee Gaskins. The reference to Pee Wee Gaskins was particularly insulting. Mr. Bland is

aware that Mr. Gaskins was prosecuted by Mr. Harpootlian. Mr. Bland knows stealing money is

in no way morally equivalent to murdering more than a dozen people and raping girls as young

as 12 years old. He knows Mr. Gaskins, two weeks before his execution, plotted to have Mr.

Harpootlian’s three-year-old daughter kidnapped, forcing him and his family to live under armed

guard at a secure location. Mr. Bland’s statement that Mr. Harpootlian’s current client is morally

equivalent to the mass murder who threatened his daughter was meant as a “dig” against Mr.

Harpootlian as much as a comment about Mr. Murdaugh.

These highly publicized media statements regarding Mr. Murdaugh are meant to prejudice

prosecutors, judges, and, ultimately, jurors against Mr. Murdaugh. By publicly vilifying Mr.

Murdaugh in the media over a period of months while simultaneously suing him in a legal

proceeding, Mr. Bland hopes to prejudice the legal proceedings to award him and his client more

punitive damages by inflaming the jury pool and by making it impossible for Mr. Murdaugh to

say or do anything to mitigate his alleged actions. Mr. Bland does not care that a collateral effect

of his smear campaign will be to prejudice criminal legal proceedings against Mr. Murdaugh,

which share the same jury pool.

13
2. Mr. Bland’s attacks on the character, credibility, and reputation of Mr. Murdaugh’s
counsel are intended to prejudice this proceeding.

Mr. Bland, perhaps finding it unsatisfyingly easy to pummel the character of an

incarcerated opioid addict who allegedly stole millions, has also engaged in a campaign to

disparage the character, credibility, and reputation of his opposing counsel. Mr. Bland has

engaged in gratuitous public speculation about what attorney’s fees Mr. Harpootlian and Mr.

Griffin supposedly have received. Mr. Bland has publicly questioned why Messrs. Harpootlian

and Griffin are representing Mr. Murdaugh. Mr. Bland has publicly mocked the pleadings and

motions Messrs. Harpootlian and Griffin have filed in court on behalf of Mr. Murdaugh, calling

his habeas petition “a desperate act by a desperate man,” and saying “I didn’t think anybody had

the set of balls” to file his motion to dismiss. Mr. Bland has mocked Mr. Murdaugh’s counsel for

“just winging it” without “a plan” or “grand strategy.” Mr. Bland claims opposing counsel cannot

achieve anything for their client in this matter because the case is too high profile to “leverage

relationships . . . in the darkness of a judge’s chamber”—accusing Messrs. Harpootlian and Griffin

of ordinarily relying on ex parte political influence rather than effective advocacy in a courtroom

to achieve results.

Such comments do not assist the Court in finding the truth in the matter before it because

they have nothing to do with the dispute before the Court. Mr. Bland’s opinions of Messrs.

Harpootlian and Griffin’s abilities, litigation strategy, fees, court filings, or client selection

decisions are completely irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. His vitriolic public attacks on opposing

counsel are a tactic to belittle the character of his opposing counsel in the eyes of the jury pool.

They are also meant to incite public opinion to pressure the Court to rule against Mr. Murdaugh’s

lawyers on disputed matters properly decided solely on court filings and proceedings in

open court.

14
3. Mr. Bland has disclosed information that would be inadmissible at trial, including
statements about criminal charges, for the purpose of prejudicing this proceeding.

Mr. Bland has publicly speculated about what evidence the State Grand Jury has reviewed

and what indictments it may issue in the future based on conversations with Creighton Waters,

the prosecutor leading the State Grand Jury proceedings, about those purportedly secret

proceedings. He has publicly speculated, without any evidence whatsoever, that Mr. Murdaugh

murdered Plaintiff (a clear attempt to garner more punitive damages in favor of her estate). He

has explained that Mr. Murdaugh’s “victims” did not “die in vain” because their deaths helped

“bring down” Mr. Murdaugh. He also congratulated a local reporter for being the spark that lit

the fire “taking down” Mr. Murdaugh. He has repeatedly asserted Mr. Murdaugh is guilty of

numerous yet-to-be charged felonies. He has speculated that Mr. Murdaugh will be sentenced to

prison for “hundreds” of years in prison for crimes charged but not proven. None of this, or of

Mr. Bland’s many other similar statements, could ever be admissible at trial. Mr. Bland’s intent

is to use the media to place these statements before the jury pool because no judge would allow

him to do so in a courtroom.

C. No Rule 3.6(b) exceptions apply to Mr. Bland’s inflammatory rhetoric.

Mr. Bland’s disparagement campaign does not fall within the exceptions under Rule 3.6(b)

of the Rules of Professional Conduct. As shown above, he goes well beyond identifying the

claims and defendants in a case, disclosing information already in the public record, merely

stating that an investigation is in progress, merely stating the result of steps in the litigation,

requesting assistance in gathering evidence, or warning of imminent danger from a person

involved in the litigation (which would be impossible as to Mr. Murdaugh since he is in custody).

15
D. A gag order is required.

The rules governing lawyers in this State have an unambiguous rule against Mr. Bland’s

conduct. Mr. Bland’s very public refusal to obey that rule brings the legal profession into

disrepute. Failure to enforce the rule would further bring the legal profession into disrepute. If

lawyers do not obey their own rules for their own conduct, the public will not accept lawyers

enforcing rules regarding other persons legal rights and obligations. The sound administration of

justice requires lawyers representing litigants to be rule-followers, not freelance pundits who

insult opposing counsel to entertain a peanut gallery. “The very word ‘trial’ connotes decisions

on the evidence and arguments properly advanced in open court. Legal trials are not like

elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.” Gentile,

501 U.S. at 1070.

Mr. Bland has made it clear he intends to continue, and, indeed, to escalate his campaign

of extrajudicial disparagement so long as no one stops him. For that reason, a gag order is

unfortunately necessary to enforce a Rule of Professional Conduct that lawyers are expected to

follow voluntarily.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this motion and (1) enter a gag order

prohibiting Attorney Eric Bland, counsel for Plaintiffs, from making any further statements to the

media concerning Defendant or his lawyers while this action remains pending that do not fall

within the exceptions allowed by Rule 3.6(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and (2)

sanction Mr. Bland by (a) awarding Defendant costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in

making this motion, (b) referring Mr. Bland’s conduct to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and

(c) taking such other actions as the Court deems appropriate.

16
 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Richard A. Harpootlian
Richard A. Harpootlian, SC Bar No. 2725
Phillip D. Barber, SC Bar No. 103421
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
1410 Laurel Street (29201)
Post Office Box 1090
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
(803) 252-4848
Facsimile (803) 252-4810
[email protected]
[email protected]

James M. Griffin, SC Bar No. 9995

Margaret N. Fox, SC Bar No. 76228
GRIFFIN DAVIS LLC
4408 Forest Drive (29206)
Post Office Box 999
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
(803) 744-0800
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Richard Alexander Murdaugh

November 22, 2021

Columbia, South Carolina.

17