that, as a 79-year-old with a limited education, he was unaware he was signing loan documents and had complete trust in Paddy. We find evidence in the record supports the master’s finding Owens did not show good cause for failing to answer the complaint. While Owens testified he contacted Paddy after receiving the complaint and Paddy told him he had hired an attorney and would “take care of it,” Paddy disputed this characterization. Paddy testified he never told Owens he had hired an attorney to represent him and file an answer on his behalf. Furthermore, Owens presented no evidence he took any steps to protect himself by contacting either Paddy or Paddy’s attorney to confirm an answer would be filed on his behalf. See Hill v. Dotts, 345 S.C. 304, 310, 547 S.E.2d 894, 897 (Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). Owens argues he is entitled to relief
holding that if an attorney is discharged without cause he is entitled to a charging lien for the reasonable value of his services rendered prior to the date of the substitution of counsel where 1 his representation was entirely competent and successful up until his discharge 2 any potential conflict of interest was disclosed and the plaintiff chose to continue to be represented by the attorney and 3 the discharge of the attorney occurred solely because of a fee dispute holding a party has a duty to monitor the progress of his case lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney recognizing that the duty has been applied to accountants holding that a defendant had shown extraordinary circumstances where his attorney disregarded his instructions and purposefully deceived him about the progress of the proceedings recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client