Manigault v. Manigault is an unpublished April 2008 opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals. In Manigault, I represented a husband who, prior to my representation, failed to show up for trial and was not happy with the result. He retained me to petition the family court to reopen the case based on his confusion regarding the final hearing. The family court agreed to reopen the case and his wife appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s decision, finding that the family court judge did not abuse her discretion in reopening the case.
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
