Posts Tagged ‘South Carolina Supreme Court’
Posted Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
2 Comments »
In what is, for me, one of the most highly anticipated decisions on this year’s docket, the South Carolina Supreme Court decided on September 19, 2011 in the case of Theisen v. Theisen, 394 S.C. 434, 716 S.E.2d 271 (2011) that physical separation is a required component for bringing a separate maintenance action. For almost a decade, [...]
Tags: Jurisprudence, Separate Maintenance, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | 2 Comments »
Posted Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
3 Comments »
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 [...]
Tags: Attorney's Fees, Rules of Professional Conduct, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | 3 Comments »
Posted Monday, August 22nd, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Specific
No Comments »
I have previously criticized how the Office of Disciplinary Counsel was interpreting the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct as it relates to attorney advertising, especially as it regards “testimonials” left by clients on third-party web sites noting their opinion of their attorneys. Today, the South Carolina Supreme Court modified Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2 and [...]
Tags: Rules of Professional Conduct, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Specific | No Comments »
Posted Monday, August 1st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
2 Comments »
Members of the family court bar should thank pro se litigant Brian DiMarco for taking his appeal all the way to the South Carolina Supreme Court to fight a $250.00 fine. The Supreme Court’s August 1, 2011 opinion in DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 713 S.E.2d 631 (2011), provides excellent guidance on the distinction between criminal and civil [...]
Tags: Contempt Enforcement Rule to Show Cause, Criminal Contempt, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | 2 Comments »
Posted Monday, July 18th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Adoption/Termination of Parental Rights, Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
No Comments »
In SCDSS v. M. R. C. L., 393 S.C. 387, 712 S.E.2d 452 (2011), it took the South Carolina Supreme Court less than a year to reverse the Court of Appeals’ opinion, 390 S.C. 329, 701 S.E.2d 757 (Ct. App. 2010), which itself reversed a family court grant of termination of parental right against a mother whom the [...]
Tags: Department of Social Services, South Carolina Supreme Court, Termination of Parental Rights
Posted in Adoption/Termination of Parental Rights, Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | No Comments »
Posted Tuesday, June 21st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
4 Comments »
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 [...]
Tags: Attorney's Fees, Jurisprudence, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific | 4 Comments »
Posted Tuesday, May 31st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Specific
2 Comments »
Today [May 31, 2011] the Supreme Court publically reprimanded Magistrate James Oren Hughes for making an inappropriate comment to a law student attending a reception of the Horry County bar and for showing that law student, and others, an inappropriate image on his cell phone at that same reception. The Supreme Court doesn’t tell us [...]
Tags: Rules of Judicial Conduct, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Specific | 2 Comments »
Posted Tuesday, May 31st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
4 Comments »
The May 31, 2011 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Miles v. Miles, 393 S.C. 111, 711 S.E.2d 880 (2011), remedies what many South Carolina family law practitioners, including myself, considered a misguided decision in the case of Floyd v. Morgan, 383 S.C. 469 , 681 S.E.2d 570 (2009) to increase the burden of modifying support [...]
Tags: Alimony Modification, Alimony/Spousal Support, Health Insurance, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | 4 Comments »
