Bowers v. College of Charleston is an unpublished December 2011 opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals. One of my few recent non-family law appeals, I represented Dr. Bowers as he appealed a grievance proceeding decision terminating his tenured employment as a professor at the College of Charleston based on a finding that he sexually harassed a student. At the grievance hearing the College placed limitations on his attorney’s right to participate in the proceedings and allowed an ex-parte deposition of the alleged victim to be introduced into evidence when she refused to testify without her attorney being present.
The Court of Appeals affirmed Bowers’ termination and refused to address these issues because his trial counsel had failed to object. This loss was heartbreaking, as I believe Dr. Bowers was terminated based on an inappropriate procedure and based on faulty and non-credible evidence. However, it’s hard to remedy such injustices on appeal when trial counsel does not preserve error.
Deposition goals differ from trial testimony goals
Because deposition goals differ from trial testimony goals, deposition preparation should look different than trial testimony preparation.[i] Whereas trial testimony is intended to
Court of Appeals essentially affirms family court on child support and attorney’s fees
I’ve delayed blogging on the August 30, 2023, Court of Appeals opinion in Brantley v. Brantley until remittitur issued because I represented the
Once a client accuses an attorney of lacking integrity, continued representation is problematic
Every attorney encounters an occasional client who will claim that attorney is acting unethically. Often the claim is lacking loyalty to the client’s
