THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

In the Matter of Bryan Edward Barrett, Respondent.

Opinion No. 26537
Submitted August 11, 2008 – Filed August 25, 2008

PUBLIC REPRIMAND

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Barbara M. Seymour, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel, of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Bryan Edward Barrett, of Shelbyville, Indiana, pro se.

PER CURIAM:   By way of the attached order of the Indiana Supreme Court, respondent was publicly reprimanded. 

The Clerk of this Court sent a letter via certified mail to respondent notifying him that, pursuant to Rule 29(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, he had thirty (30) days in which to inform the Court of any claim he might have that a public reprimand in this state is not warranted and the reasons for any such claim.  No response was received.  The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a response stating it has no information that would indicate the imposition of identical discipline in this state is not warranted.

We find a sufficient attempt has been made to serve notice on respondent, and find none of the factors in Rule 29(d), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, present in this matter.  We also find a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction to impose as reciprocal discipline in this matter.  See In re Brooker, 377 S.C. 7, 659 S.E.2d 110 (2008); In re Stratos, 374 S.C. 212, 648 S.E.2d 607 (2007); In re Screen, 365 S.C. 172, 617 S.E.2d 122 (2005); In re Barr, 361 S.C. 399, 605 S.E.2d 536 (2004).

PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.