an attorney in South Carolina who represents an insured owes the insured a duty of loyalty and cannot, for example, communicate information detrimental to the insured to the insurance company. See Rule 1.8(b), Rule 407, SCACR; Rule 1.6, Rule 407, SCACR (general confidentiality rule). As Rule 7 of the South Carolina Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement explains, a violation of these rules could lead to sanctions such as suspension, public reprimand, or disbarment. Rule 413, SCACR. These possibilities, coupled with the threat of bad faith actions or malpractice actions if a lawyer violates these rules, provide strong external incentives for attorneys to comply with their ethical obligations. Cf. Smith v. Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Geurard, 322 S.C. 433, 472 S.E.2d 612, 614 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Of course, an insured must consent to the
holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that although violation of rules of professional conduct does not constitute negligence per se such violations may be relevant and admissible in assessing the legal duty of an attorney in a malpractice action and whether that duty was breached holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim holding violation of the rules of professional conduct does not create a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor constitute negligence per se although it may be used as some evidence of negligence