The February 1, 2012 Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Chisholm caps decade-long litigation into the amount of attorneys fees Husband is required to pay Wife. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion unwittingly implicates issue preservation concerns that might seem to require a prevailing party on appeal in the Court of Appeals to appeal a favorable [...]
Posts Tagged ‘Attorney’s Fees’
Lewin affirms family court fee award in face of Father’s multiple challenges
In the December 14, 2011 opinion in Lewin v. Lewin (in which I represented the losing appellant, though I was not his trial counsel), the Court of Appeals affirmed multiple challenges Father brought to the lower court’s award of $18,955 in fees and costs to Mother. Lewin represents an interesting fact pattern in that the parties [...]
In opinion with numerous oddities, Supreme Court approves active/passive approach to valuing marital property
In the October 31, 2011 opinion in Burch v. Burch, 395 S.C. 318, 717 S.E.2d 757 (2011), the South Carolina Supreme Court finally ratifies the passive versus active gain distinction the Court of Appeals has used for years in determining the valuation date for marital assets that change value between the date of filing and the [...]
More mixed signals from South Carolina Supreme Court on handling flat fees
The September 12, 2011 public reprimand issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court in In the Matter of Michael James Sarratt, 394 S.C. 209, 715 S.E.2d 337 (2011), perpetuates its opaque guidance on the proper handling of flat fees. Sarratt handled some of his work on a flat fee basis. Because he treated these fees as [...]
At least he got the laptop back
N.B., the Court of Appeals opinion in Pittman v. Pittman was subsequently refiled with a different analysis on the transmutation issue. See Rearranging the deck chairs Thomas F. McDow is a friend of mine and an exceptional attorney. When I noted that the appeal he pursued in Pittman v. Pittman, resulting in a published decision today [August [...]
Disloyal collegiality in the prosecution and non prosecution of motions to compel
South Carolina attorneys are expected to be collegial. Part of that collegiality is a reluctance to file motions to compel discovery responses and a frequent acceptance of discovery responses that are incomplete or evasive. Another part of that collegiality is a general understanding that a demand for fees as part of a motion to compel [...]
Indignance over representing indigent costs South Carolina attorney
The June 21, 2011 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Brown finally establishes “that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is implicated when an attorney is appointed by the court to represent an indigent litigant. In such circumstances, the attorney’s services constitute property entitling the attorney to [...]
Are court-appointed mediators underpaid and overcharging?
Though I greatly enjoy doing mediation work, there’s a reason I haven’t tried to make mediation a significant part of my legal practice: South Carolina’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules under compensate court-appointed mediators. South Carolina Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 9 sets the compensation of mediators. Under ADR Rule 9(b), a court-appointed mediator can only charge [...]