CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) — A prominent Lowcountry attorney has countersued his law partner for misusing firm money, months after being accused of doing the same himself.
The countersuit, filed on Tuesday by David Hoffman, who is the face of the Hoffman Law Firm, alleges that his firm’s partner, Kevin Smith, put over $500,000 of personal expenses, including “excursions” at a downtown adult entertainment business, on a BP gas card belonging to the firm.
The suit goes on to allege Smith would attempt to make personal purchases on Amazon appear to be made by the firm’s office manager by changing the recipient’s name to hers.
A receipt from the filing purports to show a charge made on Hoffman’s personal firm credit card to fix Smith’s yacht, which the suit alleges is in relation to a yacht business that Smith owns.
Almost three months before Tuesday’s filing, Smith filed a lawsuit against Hoffman, alleging Hoffman committed “actual fraud” by spending firm funds on Botox, mortgage payments and weapons.
In an affidavit filed in November by Smith’s forensic accountant, Christa Yantis, she alleges that between 2017 and 2025 Hoffman spent $10,041,095 of firm funds on personal expenses or transfers to other business entities owned by Hoffman.
Some other payments alleged to have been made by Hoffman include interior and exterior cleaning of his home and costs relating to legal and accounting work.
The Hoffman Law Firm was founded in 2007, but Smith joined the practice in 2012. Around 2014, he became an owner of 49% of the firm, with Hoffman retaining 51%.
In his September lawsuit, Smith claimed that despite the firm only having two members, Hoffman refused to make “equitable distributions” for years.
A forensic accountant stated in court records that the disproportionate share of funds disbursed is $9,400,237.45 for the benefit of Hoffman and that it is highly likely that fraud has occurred.
In an affidavit filed by Hoffman in September, he said, “Both Mr. Smith and I have used firm monies to pay personal expenses,” and also said, “After this controversy arose, I instructed the accountant retained by [the Hoffman Law Firm] to review the tax returns, and to thoroughly go through Quickbook for the relevant period. He has completed the review and amended the tax returns. Those reflect the correction of the transfers made to other accounts.”
“While these transfers are loans to me, and I am responsible for putting them back in the LLC,” Hoffman said.
The Dec. 16 countersuit filed by Hoffman alleged personal expenses made by Smith included:
Among allegations made in initial filings, Hoffman alleged that Smith had discussed his “contemporaneous use of cocaine and other illegal drugs” while at work.
Hoffman’s December countersuit doubled down on these allegations, stating that, “[Smith] indulges in illegal drugs, and he then cannot help himself from regaling the office staff with tales of these ‘adventures’ and his accompanying unlawful conduct.”
Smith has previously denied using cocaine, responding in an email, “I do not use drugs and I believe these accusations are nothing more than retaliation against me for exposing Hoffman’s financial misconduct.”
In September, multiple affidavits were filed by Hoffman and eight other employees at the Hoffman Law Firm filed affidavits alleging that Smith wasn’t productive at work.
“Mr. Smith has done absolutely nothing with regard to the management of the law firm, and he has done comparatively little in the way of productivity.” Hoffman stated, “For quite some time, I have been dissatisfied with Mr. Smith and his behaviors. I suffered along but was increasingly dissatisfied of the effect it was having on our firm.”
Hoffman paralegal, Tracie Hopkins, said in her affidavit that, “When [Smith] was in the office, he spent an inordinate amount of time focusing upon his charter yacht business to the detriment of his case load. I overheard him talking on the telephone on many occasions about scheduling the charter boat.”
Hoffman office manager Stephanie Mills said, “He travels frequently across the country and internationally, performing at music festivals. He has on occasion discussed with me and others his partying life, including the use of illicit drugs, such as marijuana and cocaine.”
Hoffman claims in court filings that he had discussed with various legal counsel the need for the Hoffman Law Firm to remove Smith from the firm, leading up to August, on the basis of his alleged workplace conduct.
Judge Patrick Fant said in a September order that Hoffman was required to stop restricting financial records from Smith.
Fant addressed the contents of affidavits filed by Hoffman and his employees.
“Mr. Hoffman’s affidavit and those of the Firm employees do not provide a basis for denying the plaintiffs the temporary relief requested,” Fant said.
Hoffman released a statement regarding Tuesday’s countersuit:
Today’s court filing sets forth my response and counterclaims, which detail serious allegations regarding misconduct and financial misuse. I stand firmly behind the allegations set forth in the filing and believe it is important that truth and accountability prevail. While it is unfortunate that this matter has reached this point, addressing it through the proper legal channels is necessary.
Because this is active litigation, I will not litigate these matters in the media and will address them through the court process. This is a private business dispute and does not affect our clients, cases, or the day-to-day operations of Hoffman Law Firm.
Smith released a statement late Tuesday afternoon in response to Hoffman’s countersuit:
This situation has never been about ego, control, or public conflict. My actions have been guided by one obligation above all others. Protect the clients, protect the people who serve them, and protect the integrity of the firm. Clients deserve steady hands, clear communication, and lawyers who put their interests first.
His release continued:
Smith instituted this lawsuit after noticing irregularities on the firm’s tax returns. When Smith requested the firm’s financial records from David Hoffman, he was instructed not to enter the building again and told he would be removed from the law firm due to his “distrust” of Hoffman. Smith filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and Hoffman Law Firm. The lawsuit seeks a full accounting, an order requiring Hoffman to pay back firm money he used for personal expenses, and an order dissociating David Hoffman from the firm. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, a Temporary Restraining Order was issued against Hoffman noting Smith was “likely to succeed on the merits of the claim that Defendant Hoffman has breached his duty of loyalty by systematically and routinely using Firm funds for personal use and making unlawful distributions.” The Court went on to find both Smith and Hoffman Law Firm “are likely to succeed on the claims for conversion and fraud.”
In connection with the litigation, a certified public accountant and certified fraud examiner retained to review available records submitted sworn findings describing significant accounting irregularities, incomplete disclosures, and limitations placed on access to historical financial documentation. The examiner noted “(1) widespread misappropriations and self-dealing of the Firm’s funds by Mr. Hoffman; (2) repeated alteration of the Firm’s financial records with what appears to be an intent to conceal these misappropriations and self-dealing by Mr. Hoffman; (3) years of mis-categorizations of transactions which appear to be a result of a lack of understanding of basic record keeping principles by Mr. Hoffman; and (4) efforts to hide information and hinder our examination.” Her review showed Hoffman would print checks to himself, but then change the payee in the accounting records to make it appear those checks were written to some other business related entity. “This is indicative of an intent to conceal the money Mr. Hoffman was paying to himself and disguise the transaction from anyone who would review the books,” according to the examiner.
It is also alleged that Hoffman spent firm money on Botox injections, firearms, boat expenses, home mortgages, tuition payments for his children, lawyers for his divorce, and that he wrote regular checks to individuals with no known connection to legitimate law firm activities. The examiner noted that in one case, Hoffman made an electronic cash transfer to an account for one of his downtown Charleston apartments which he labeled in the firm’s accounting software as a “charitable contribution.”
Smith also alleges a law firm credit card was issued to a family member of Hoffman, who Smith says appears to be using the card for “unrestricted personal spending” that included 194 separate charges by that family member in July 2025 that comprised purchases made overseas during a trip, Uber Eats charges, and gaming purchases.
Smith alleges that based on limited available resources, the examiner estimated that Hoffman misappropriated over $10 million in law firm money to himself and on personal expenses betwene 2017 and 2025 “with still millions of dollars of records to go through.”
The examiner recommended, Smith said, that an independent third party assume responsibility for maintaining accounting records and overseeing financial decisions while the dispute continue to prevent “further risk to firm assets and operations.”
Smith’s release continued:
David Hoffman recently filed his Answer to the lawsuit and included counter claims against Smith. Smith contends Hoffman’s response is nothing more than retaliation and an attempt to divert attention from his financial wrongdoings. Because Hoffman contends he contributed more to the firm’s success than anyone else, Smith released an accounting of both his and Hoffman’s fees which show Smith brought in over $14,000,000 from 2016-2024. Hoffman produced less than $1,500,000 during that period or about 10% of Smith’s production.
Smith has continued working on client matters, cooperating fully with forensic review, and complying with all court directives. He has also posted the required bond and refrained from any actions that would destabilize the firm or prejudice the interests of clients, staff, or the court.
All allegations remain subject to judicial review and determination. He stated that no further public comment will be made while litigation is ongoing in order to respect the legal process and the court’s role in resolving the matter.
843.535.8387
Service Areas
