Convoluted attorney’s fees case results in Supreme Court reinstating the family court award

Posted Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

The February 1, 2012 Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 722 S.E.2d 222 (2012), caps decade-long litigation into the amount of attorneys fees Husband is

Lewin affirms family court fee award in face of Father’s multiple challenges

Posted Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

In the December 14, 2011 opinion in Lewin v. Lewin, 396 S.C. 349, 721 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 2011), (in which I represented the losing appellant, though I

In opinion with numerous oddities, Supreme Court approves active/passive approach to valuing marital property

Posted Tuesday, November 1st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

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

More mixed signals from South Carolina Supreme Court on handling flat fees

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

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

At least he got the laptop back

Posted Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

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

Disloyal collegiality in the prosecution and non prosecution of motions to compel

Posted Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific

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

Indignance over representing indigent costs South Carolina attorney

Posted Tuesday, June 21st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific

The June 21, 2011 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Brown 393 S.C. 214, 711 S.E.2d 899 (2011), finally establishes “that the Takings Clause of

Revealing or shielding a family court attorney’s itemized statement of time spent

Posted Saturday, March 19th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific

An attorney’s itemized statement of time spent on a case can be a valuable piece of information for an opposing party and that party’s attorney.

Put Mr. Forman’s experience, knowledge, and dedication to your service for any of your South Carolina family law needs.