What should I do if my high school student is accused of academic misconduct in South Carolina? VIDEO

When a high school student in South Carolina is accused of academic misconduct, it can have a dramatic effect on your child's ability to attend the college or university of their choice. Academic misconduct can include cheating on an exam, using unauthorized internet resources, plagiarism, cheating on College Board Assessments, the SAT, SAT subject matter exams, AP exams. It is crucial that your high school student is afforded their due process rights, that the charges are clearly defined, that the process used to investigate the charges is fair and that any resolution or sanction is proportionate and appropriate to the offense.

In particular, interacting with the College Board requires a detailed understanding of the process to achieve the best possible outcome. The College Board takes misconduct extremely seriously and often imposes sanctions with a heavy hand.

An experienced attorney advisor will be your high school student's best ally to defend against academic misconduct charges and they should be involved from as early as possible in the case.

South Carolina high schools where Joseph D. Lento can help as your child's student's academic misconduct advisor during investigations, hearings and appeals include, but are not limited to, the following school districts:


  • Abbeville School District
  • Aiken County Public School District
  • Allendale School District
  • Anderson School District One
  • Anderson 2
  • Anderson 3
  • Anderson 4
  • Anderson School District Five


  • Bamberg 1
  • Bamberg 2
  • Barnwell 19
  • Barnwell 45
  • Beaufort County School District
  • Berkeley County School District


  • Calhoun School District
  • Charleston County School District
  • Cherokee School District
  • Chester School District
  • Chesterfield School District
  • Clarendon 1
  • Clarendon 2
  • Clarendon 3
  • Clover School District
  • Colleton School District


  • Darlington County School District
  • Dillon 1
  • Dillon 2
  • Dillon 3
  • Dorchester School District Two
  • Dorchester 4


  • Edgefield School District


  • Fairfield School District
  • Florence Public School District One
  • Florence 2
  • Florence 3
  • Florence 4
  • Florence 5
  • Fort Mill Schools


  • Georgetown County School District
  • Greenville County School District
  • Greenwood School District 50
  • Greenwood 51
  • Greenwood 52


  • Hampton 1
  • Hampton 2
  • Horry County Schools


  • Jasper School District


  • Kershaw County School District


  • Lancaster County School District
  • Laurens 55
  • Laurens 56
  • Lee School District
  • Lexington School District One
  • Lexington 2
  • Lexington 3
  • Lexington 4
  • District 5 of Lexington and Richland Counties


  • Marion 1
  • Marion 7
  • Marlboro School District
  • McCormick School District
  • Mullins School District


  • Newberry School District


  • School District of Oconee County
  • Orangeburg Consolidated 3
  • Orangeburg Consolidated 4
  • Orangeburg Consolidated 5


  • School District of Pickens County


  • Richland County School District One
  • Richland School District Two
  • Rock Hill Schools - York County District 3


  • Saluda School District
  • Spartanburg County School District 1
  • Spartanburg School District 2
  • Spartanburg County School District 3
  • Spartanburg County School District 4
  • Spartanburg County School District 5
  • Spartanburg County School District 6
  • Spartanburg County School District 7


  • Union School District


  • Williamsburg School District
  • Williston School District 29


  • York School District 1

It is critical to make certain academic misconduct charges at your child's South Carolina high school are handled properly and that the accused student's interests and rights are protected from as early as possible during the investigative and disciplinary process.  One reason, among many, is because even at high schools where a finding of responsibility for academic misconduct is made at a hearing, the investigation will set the stage for what the hearing panel is provided prior to a hearing (and what the hearing panel will in large part rely on at a hearing), and at high schools where the finding of responsibility is made solely through the investigative process, what takes place during the investigation itself will determine whether the accused student is found responsible or not responsible for academic misconduct.

Unfortunately, some parents make the mistake of not taking the necessary precautions as soon as possible when their child is accused of academic misconduct.  Some people will mistakenly believe that if they "just explain what happened," their school will be fair and impartial and will arrive at the truth.  In a perfect world this may be the case, but in a perfect world, being called to answer for alleged academic misconduct would not exist.

Fighting passionately for the future of his clients at schools throughout the nation for many years, Joseph D. Lento knows how important it is to mount the strongest defense because he understands that an accused high school student's academic future is on the line. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph Lento is a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted as an attorney pro hac vice in state and federal court if needed when representing clients nationwide, and serves as an academic misconduct advisor to high school students facing investigations and disciplinary cases in South Carolina and throughout the nation. Make certain your or your student's interests are protected - Contact National High School Academic Misconduct Defense Attorney Joseph D. Lento today at 888-535-3686.

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact the Lento Law Firm today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.