Copy
Show off your VAV purple leash

Thanks to all the donors who contributed to the YLD Voices Against Violence Committee Purple Leash Project so far. There's still time to donate and receive a complimentary #VAVPurpleLeash. Post a photo of your fur baby and the leash on social media, tag @SCBar or @SCBarYLD and #VAVPurpleLeash, and you'll be entered to win a $100 PetSmart giftcard. Phoebe, Finn, Rocky, and Wasabi (pictured clockwise above) enjoyed showing off their purple and helping the Humane Society of Marlboro County, an animal shelter dedicated to assisting to pets of domestic violence survivors. 

Member benefit: LawPay special

Giving your clients the ability to pay for your services online is a simple, secure and a proven way to get money in the door and boost your firm's bottom line. Right now, our member benefit partners at LawPay have a limited-time offer for SC Bar members. Sign up by April 30 and receive a $100 processing credit plus three months with no monthly fee. Learn more and get started

Tune in April 29

The sixth and final Virtual Fireside Chat: Beyond the Robe hosted by the South Carolina Bar’s Diversity Committee will be at 6 p.m. Thursday, April 29 on Facebook Live and the Bar’s website
 
This chat will feature Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Judge Richard M. Gergel of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, and former Chief Justice Jean H. Toal of the South Carolina Supreme Court. The trio of jurists will engage in a live, candid conversation with Diversity Committee members Sutania A. Fuller, Amber Hendrick and La’Jessica Stringfellow

 
Registration is not required. If you do not have Facebook, the program can be viewed at www.scbar.org/live
  
The Virtual Fireside Chats are open to anyone who wants to attend. If you have questions, contact Sutania A. Fuller asfuller@lex-co.com.

Court news: Bar exam updates

Results of the February 2021 Uniform Bar Examination will be posted at 4 p.m., Friday April 23 on the Bar Admissions page.
 
The July 2021 Bar Examination will be conducted as a live, in-person examination on July 27 and 28, 2021, according to the SC Judicial Branch’s 
news item. The SC Supreme Court will issue an order specifying the mitigation measures for the July 2021 Examination at a later date. Later guidance will provide additional information on how applicants should provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination.

One week until Derby Drinks

There is still time to reserve your spot in next week's Derby Drinks: A Virtual Cocktail Mixology Class, hosted by the SC Bar Foundation! The event is at 7 p.m. Thursday, April 29. Renowned bartender Ryan Casey will teach you how to craft a perfect Mint Julep and a classic Whiskey Sour. Make sure to wear your hats, fascinators, and bow ties! Tickets are $25 a person. Learn more and purchase tickets here.

We like big books

The CLE Spring Book Festival continues in its fourth week showcasing eDiscovery in the Paralegal Survival Guide Facts and Forms, Volumes I and II, Third Edition and South Carolina Dram Shop Litigation: A Practice Guide. Check out this advanced author video screening to learn more from the authors:

Keep an eye on social media and your inbox for the latest author talk spotlight videos. The festival runs through April 30 showcasing a variety of SC Bar publications covering multiple practice areas.


Hot CLEs for the season

As the days of summer approach, make time on your calendar for on of these hot, upcoming programs:

Understanding Victim Advocacy in South Carolina (sponsored by SC Bar YLD)
April 27; Cost: $70 / Credit: 1.0 MCLE

Security Assessments and Pen Testing for Law Firms
April 28; Cost: $70 / Credit: 1.0 MCLE

2021 Best Practices for South Carolina Paralegals (via Zoom)
May 7; Cost: $125 / Credit: N/A (does not qualify for MCLE credit for attorneys)
*Download the brochure and registration form here

2021 Recent Developments in Employment Law
May 14; Cost: $250 / Credits: 6.0 MCLE / 6.0 ELL Specialization Credit

Law Firms Face the Scourge of Ransomware: How to Prevent, Respond, Recover 
May 18; Cost: $70 / Credit: 1.0 MCLE


2021 Convention seminars now on-demand

Convention FOMO (fear of missing out)? No worries! The SC Bar CLE Division has all 2021 Convention seminars available on-demand. Browse these featured seminars below oview a complete listing of the 2021 Convention seminars on-demand.

2021 Bar Convention Real Estate Practice Section
Cost: $210 / Credit: 2.71 MCLE, 1.0 SA/MH

2021 Bar Convention Health Care Law Section
Cost: $210 / Credit: 2.95 MCLE

2021 Bar Convention Tax Law Section
Cost: $210 / Credit: 2.80 MCLE, 2.80 Taxation Law Specialization

2021 Bar Convention Workers’ Compensation Section
Cost: $210 / Credit: 2.83 MCLE

ADVANCE SHEET UPDATES
April 21, 2021
Supreme Court Opinions
 
In this declaratory judgment matter, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision in S.C. Lottery Comm'n v. Glassmeyer, 428 S.C. 423, 835 S.E.2d 524 (Ct. App. 2019) which affirmed the circuit court's ruling, without a hearing, that information petitioner sought from the South Carolina Lottery Commission was exempt from disclosure and issuance of an injunction permanently restraining petitioner from seeking the information. The Supreme Court found the injunction was overly broad in scope because it prohibited petitioner from seeking the information from any source and was unnecessary because the declaratory judgment entered by the circuit court was an adequate remedy to protect the Lottery Commission's interests. The Court also found that while a declaratory judgment action was proper, the circuit court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings, as it was necessary for the Lottery Commission to present evidence of how disclosure of the information would constitute an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy and for petitioner's reason for requesting the information to be developed in order for the circuit court to decide if the exemption applies. 
 
S.C. Lottery Comm'n v. Glassmeyer, Op. No. 28023 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Apr. 21, 2021) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 22) is available online

Lawyer Discipline
In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Supreme Court accepted an Agreement for Discipline by Consent and publicly reprimanded respondent for engaging in sexual relations with a vulnerable client when those relations could have a harmful or prejudicial effect on the client's interests.  
 
In the Matter of Jennings B. Anderson, Op. No. 28020 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Apr. 21, 2021) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 9) is available online
 

In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Supreme Court accepted an Agreement for Discipline by Consent and publicly reprimanded respondent for failing to ensure his law firm paid a process server even though the firm had, with limited exception, received payment for those bills from its clients and failing to deliver trust account funds to a third party in a timely manner.
 
In the Matter of Peter D. Korn, Op. No. 288021 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Apr. 21, 2021) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 12) is available online.
 

In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Supreme Court accepted an Agreement for Discipline by Consent and disbarred respondent. The disbarment is based on respondent's failure to respond to clients' calls and letters; failure to return unearned fees, misuse of client funds, and failure to pay a service provider who provided services for several of respondent's clients; failure to respond to an inquiry by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; willful failure to make child support payments, resulting in a finding of civil contempt, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and failure to comply with final decisions of the Resolution of Fee Disputes Board.

In the Matter of John A. Jackson, Op. No. 28022 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Apr. 21, 2021) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 17) is available online
 

In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Supreme Court determined petitioner committed misconduct and imposed a four-month definite suspension based on petitioner's failure to perfect an appeal on behalf of a client or take actions directed by the Court of Appeals to do so and his failure to respond in a timely manner to inquiries made by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in this and a prior disciplinary matter.
 
In the Matter of James Watson Smiley, IV, Op. No. 28024 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Apr. 21, 2021) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 28) is available online

Court of Appeals Opinions

In this appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Panel's decision and remanded for a new hearing on appellant's claim for total and permanent disability based on injury to multiple body parts and loss of earning capacity, psychological overlay, date of maximum medical improvement (MMI), and, if appropriate, future medical care and costs. The court concluded there was not substantial evidence in the record permitting the Panel to find appellant only injured one body part and that he suffered no psychological overlay. Specifically, the court determined the Panel improperly applied its finding that appellant lacked credibility to discount other evidence presented. The court also concluded that because the Panel summarily found, without explanation and without a clear basis in the record, that appellant has not lost earning capacity, that finding was likewise not supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the court found the Panel failed to explain how it resolved conflicting evidence as to MMI. 
 
Clark v. Philips Electronics/Shakespeare, Op. No. 5809 (S.C. Ct. App. refiled April 21, 2021) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 33) is available online


In this appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed appellant's attempted murder conviction, finding the trial court erred in charging the jury that "when the intent to do an act that violates the law exists, motive becomes immaterial." The court noted the only reference to intent in the original jury instructions was in the definition of attempted murder, a definition that was repeated when the jury asked to be recharged on the offenses. Later, the statement regarding motive was made by the judge in response to the jury's request for the definition of intent, which the jury noted had not been charged. The court concluded that, in this context - where the references to intent were initially limited to the trial judge's definition of the offense, motive was not material and had not been mentioned during trial, and the statement regarding motive was made in response to the jury's request for the definition of intent and was therefore unduly emphasized – the statement regarding motive could have confused and misled the jury. Finally, the court found that because attempted murder and the lesser included offenses are all specific intent crimes, the trial judge erred in his response to the jury's question about intent.
 
State v. Perry, Op. No. 5816 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Apr. 21, 2021) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 41) is availabe online.

In this appeal, the Court of Appeals found the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the State's request for the twelve-year-old victim to testify outside appellant's presence. The court rejected appellant's argument that the victim was not "very young" as set forth in S.C. Code Ann. §16-3-1550(E) (2015), and that the victim's claim that she would be unable to testify with appellant in the room did not warrant special procedures, finding that the need to protect a child witness from trauma qualifies as a "special need" under the statute and constitutes an adequate showing of necessity to deviate from face-to-face confrontation. The court further concluded there was evidence to support the trial judge's finding that such a showing had been made.
 
State v. Carter, Op. No. 5817 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Apr. 21, 2021) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 52) is available online.
Announcements
Firm & hiring announcements

Lueder, Larkin & Hunter, LLC announces that Isaac Grosswiler has joined its Charleston office as an associate in the firm’s Workers’ Compensation & Longshore practice group, located at 671 Belle Isle Avenue, Suite 120, Mount Pleasant, 29464.

The Law Office of Peter David Brown, P.A. announces that Donald N. Sorenson has joined the firm an associate attorney located at 749 Johnnie Dodds Blvd., Suite A, Mount Pleasant, 29464.
 

In memoriam
 
James P. Rollison, 69, of Gastonia, North Carolina, died on April 4. His obituary is available online.
Upcoming Events:

April 23
Animal Law Committee
April 28
Solo and Small Firm Section Council
April 30
SC Lawyer Editorial Board 
*All meetings are virtual
Event Calendars:
Got an Announcement? Email Mary-Kathryn Craft at mcraft@scbar.org.
You are receiving this email because you have elected to receive the E-Blast from the SC Bar. To change your email address, you must log on to the Attorney Information System at www.sccourts.org/ais. This mailing list is updated weekly.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Website
Copyright © 2021 South Carolina Bar, All rights reserved.


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.