Case Explained:This article breaks down the legal background, charges, and implications of Case Explained: Another Disgraced South Carolina Attorney Charged – Legal Perspective
Another Disgraced South Carolina Attorney Charged — But Will Justice Be Equal?
By James Seidel | CC News Network
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Yet another South Carolina attorney is facing federal charges tied to alleged financial fraud, raising fresh questions about accountability within the legal profession — and whether sentencing in white-collar crime cases is applied evenly.
William Christopher Swett, 42, of Johns Island, has been charged with wire fraud and money laundering after allegedly defrauding his law firm and clients of at least $1.5 million.
According to federal charging documents, Swett worked as a personal injury attorney at a Mount Pleasant law firm, representing clients in wrongful death and injury claims. Prosecutors allege that between 2018 and 2024, Swett devised a complex scheme to siphon funds from both his firm and vulnerable clients.
Federal authorities say Swett established outside “legal services” companies, then billed his firm and clients for services that were never performed, inflated expenses, and entirely illegitimate charges. Prosecutors further allege that he concealed his ownership and association with these companies while profiting personally.
The scheme allegedly went even deeper.
Charging documents state Swett fabricated clients, falsified death and injury claims, submitted reimbursement requests for nonexistent matters, and created fake medical records and supporting documents. Authorities say he then laundered the proceeds through accounts under his control to conceal the source of the funds.
The total alleged fraud exceeds $1.5 million.
Swett has agreed to plead guilty to four counts of wire fraud and four counts of money laundering. Each wire fraud charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison. He also faces fines of up to $250,000 per count, restitution, and supervised release following incarceration.
The FBI Columbia Field Office investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Limehouse is prosecuting.
The Broader Question: How Are Fraud Sentences Really Determined?
Swett’s case inevitably invites comparison to other high-profile attorney fraud cases — both in South Carolina and nationwide.
Most notably, former South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh received a 40-year federal sentence for financial crimes involving fraud, theft, and embezzlement from clients, in addition to two life sentences in state court for murder (currently on appeal).
Murdaugh admitted to stealing millions from injured clients, a paraplegic man, a deaf client, and the family of his deceased housekeeper. In federal court, he accepted responsibility, entered a plea, and did not mount a diminished-capacity defense.
Meanwhile, in California, celebrity attorney Tom Girardi — once nationally known for high-profile litigation and his association with Bravo’s Real Housewives of Beverly Hills — was sentenced to seven years and three months in federal prison after being convicted of embezzling millions from vulnerable clients, including widows and families of Lion Air Flight 610 crash victims.
Girardi, then in his mid-80s, was tried despite documented cognitive decline and ultimately sentenced to significantly less time than Murdaugh.
Closer to home, former South Carolina attorney Candy Kern — who admitted to stealing approximately $30 million in a veterans’ pension and investment scheme — received a sentence of probation and home detention rather than prison time.
Three attorneys.
Three fraud schemes.
Three dramatically different outcomes.
What Factors Drive Sentencing?
Federal sentencing guidelines consider numerous factors:
-
Total financial loss
-
Number of victims
-
Sophistication of the scheme
-
Abuse of position of trust
-
Acceptance of responsibility
-
Criminal history
-
Cooperation with investigators
-
Health and age
But perception, publicity, and the broader narrative surrounding a defendant can also shape public reaction — and arguably, prosecutorial posture.
Murdaugh’s case unfolded amid a global media spectacle and a double homicide prosecution that amplified public outrage. Girardi’s case, though widely covered, carried a different tone — often framed around aging and mental decline. Kern’s case unfolded with far less national attention.
Swett’s case now enters this landscape.
If convicted as expected under his plea agreement, his sentencing will be closely watched — not only by victims and members of the Charleston legal community, but by observers questioning consistency in white-collar sentencing.
A Legal Profession Under Scrutiny
South Carolina has seen an unusual cluster of attorney misconduct cases in recent years, prompting renewed calls for oversight and transparency within the bar and disciplinary systems.
From fabricated claims to settlement theft to laundering proceeds through shell entities, the allegations in the Swett case underscore a troubling theme: when officers of the court exploit the very people they are sworn to protect, the damage extends beyond finances — it erodes public trust in the justice system itself.
Whether Swett receives a sentence closer to seven years, forty years, probation — or something in between — will likely reignite debate about fairness, proportionality, and whether justice is truly blind in high-profile fraud cases.
For now, the case proceeds in federal court.
And once again, South Carolina’s legal community finds itself in the spotlight.
###
Over 50,000,000 Million Views on Tiktok and Instagram
Join Our 160,000+ Followers Across all Social Media
Stay informed. Stay curious. Stay connected.
