Jean H. Toal

This case concerns a licensed attorney who was suspended from the practice of law for six months beginning August 22, 2011. The attorney later submitted an affidavit seeking reinstatement under Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted the reinstatement request and restored the attorney to full practice in the state.

procedure

This case concerns the reinstatement of an attorney following a period of suspension under South Carolina's lawyer disciplinary rules. The respondent had been suspended for ninety days, with the suspension made retroactive to August 8, 2011. After completing the suspension, he filed an affidavit requesting reinstatement pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the reinstatement, allowing the attorney to resume the practice of law in the state.

procedure

This case involves a lawyer, referred to as the respondent, who was arrested and charged with forgery involving $10,000 or more and breach of trust involving between $2,000 and $10,000. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition requesting interim suspension of the respondent's law license under Rule 17(a) of the South Carolina Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the petition, ordering immediate suspension of the respondent's license to practice law until further order and enjoining access to any trust, escrow, operating, or other law office accounts. The decision follows directly from the criminal charges and the applicable disciplinary rules without additional findings or hearings described in the order. Chief Justice Toal did not participate in the ruling.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Century BMW's motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit under a contract containing a class action waiver, which the trial court and South Carolina Supreme Court initially denied based on state law under the Dealers Act and public policy. Following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion on federal preemption under the FAA, the South Carolina Supreme Court examined whether the preemption argument had been preserved. The court held that the issue was not preserved because it was never raised to or ruled upon by the trial court or in the initial state proceedings, despite references to general arbitration policies, and therefore reinstated its original opinion.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case In Re Moore concerns a lawyer who was suspended from practicing law for six months beginning in March 2011. The respondent submitted an affidavit seeking reinstatement under Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court reviewed the request and granted reinstatement, ordering that the lawyer be restored to the practice of law in South Carolina. The decision was issued by Chief Justice Jean H. Toal based on compliance with the procedural requirements for reinstatement.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves disciplinary proceedings against a South Carolina attorney arrested and charged with multiple counts of tax evasion, failure to pay taxes or file returns, and failure to collect and remit employee income taxes under state law for tax years 2005 through 2009. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel petitioned the court for interim suspension of the attorney's license and appointment of another lawyer to protect client interests under the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted the petition, ordering immediate suspension of the respondent's law license until further order and appointing Hal LaVaughn Beverly, Jr. to assume control of client files, trust accounts, and related matters.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure

In Terry v. State, the petitioner, convicted of murder and other offenses and sentenced to death, sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The claims centered on counsel's failure to argue prosecutorial misconduct to admit the petitioner's statement to police during the guilt phase and failure to shift from a reasonable doubt defense after referencing the statement in opening arguments. The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that the state's decision not to introduce the statement was permissible trial strategy rather than misconduct, given its broad discretion in presenting evidence, and that the petitioner failed to show prejudice from counsel's strategy under Strickland standards. The opinion noted the statement was ultimately used only in the penalty phase and found sufficient evidence supporting the PCR court's conclusions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a petition filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel seeking to place attorney respondent McAuley on interim suspension under Rule 17(b) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted the petition without further elaboration in the order. The court directed that the respondent's license to practice law in the state be suspended pending additional orders. The ruling applies the procedural mechanism provided in the cited disciplinary rules for interim action during ongoing proceedings.

procedure

The case involves a petition by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel seeking interim suspension of an attorney's law license after the respondent was arrested and charged with criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature. The South Carolina Supreme Court ordered the immediate suspension of the respondent's license to practice law until further court order. The court also appointed attorney Robert Michael Drose to take control of the respondent's client files, trust accounts, and other law office accounts to safeguard client interests. This action was taken pursuant to Rules 17 and 31 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case In Re Wild concerns a lawyer who had been suspended from the practice of law for ninety days beginning February 7, 2011. The respondent submitted an affidavit seeking reinstatement under Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement in Rule 413, SCACR. The court reviewed the request and granted reinstatement, allowing the attorney to resume practicing law in the state. The decision rested on the attorney's compliance with the applicable procedural rules following the completed suspension period.

procedure

The case involved the Georgetown County League of Women Voters suing Smith Land Company for filling isolated wetlands on its Pawleys Island property without a DHEC permit under the South Carolina Pollution Control Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to restore the wetlands. The circuit court dismissed the action, holding that DHEC lacked jurisdiction over isolated wetlands, that the company had met all legal prerequisites, and that the Act created no private cause of action. The Supreme Court reversed on all points, ruling that the Act authorizes DHEC regulation of isolated wetlands, that a permit was required before discharge of fill material, and that the statute expressly allows private suits by parties damaged by violations.

environmentprocedure

This case concerns a lawyer who was suspended from practicing law for six months beginning August 9, 2010. The individual submitted an affidavit requesting reinstatement under Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement in Rule 413, SCACR. The court granted the reinstatement request, allowing the lawyer to resume practicing law in the state. The decision rested directly on compliance with the specified procedural rule for such requests.

procedure

The case involves a lawyer who was disbarred in 2004 and later filed a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law. The petition was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness, which held a hearing and recommended reinstatement with specific conditions; neither the petitioner nor the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed exceptions to that recommendation. The court granted the petition for reinstatement, ordering that the lawyer practice for three years under the supervision of an experienced attorney with weekly meetings, quarterly compliance reports, annual malpractice insurance documentation, and completion of an ethics program within one year. The decision was based on the unchallenged committee recommendation and the need to ensure compliance through ongoing oversight.

procedure

This administrative order from the Chief Justice of South Carolina addresses mortgage foreclosure actions involving owner-occupied dwellings, building on a prior order related to the federal Home Affordable Modification Program. The order requires mortgagees in pending and new foreclosure cases to notify mortgagors of their right to foreclosure intervention for loan modification or other loss mitigation, stay all proceedings until the process is complete, and certify compliance before any hearing or sale can proceed. It establishes uniform definitions and procedures statewide to facilitate communication between parties, prevent cases from advancing during ongoing negotiations, and allow for mediation or sanctions for bad-faith conduct. The core reasoning is that breakdowns in loss mitigation efforts have increased unresolved foreclosures and burdened court resources, necessitating consistent rules to give eligible homeowners a fair opportunity for resolution where possible.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Corley, a police officer stopped the defendant after observing him briefly visit a known drug house early in the morning and then fail to use a turn signal while driving away. During the traffic stop, the defendant admitted to purchasing crack cocaine at the house, and he was arrested and convicted of possession after his motion to suppress the statements and drugs was denied. The court affirmed the conviction as modified, ruling that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion based on the defendant's nervous behavior, inconsistent statements, and presence at the drug house, along with the separate traffic violation as an independent justification, rather than requiring probable cause.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a workers’ compensation claim filed by Ernest Lee Paschal against RAP Financial Services after he suffered severe injuries, including paraplegia, while repossessing a vehicle in 2000. The dispute centered on whether Paschal qualified as an employee entitled to lifetime benefits or as an independent contractor. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the workers’ compensation commission and lower courts, ruling that Paschal was an employee. Applying the common-law test reinstated in Wilkinson, which equally weighs four factors—direct evidence of the right to control, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, and right to fire—the court determined that the factors preponderated in favor of an employment relationship based on the record evidence and credibility findings.

labor & employment

This case involves a lawyer who was suspended from practicing law for a period of six months beginning April 12, 2010. The respondent filed an affidavit seeking reinstatement in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The court granted the reinstatement request, restoring the individual's ability to practice law in the state. The decision followed directly from the submission of the required affidavit under the applicable procedural rules.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the suspension of Larry McCarson's driver's license after his arrest for driving under the influence, based on a breathalyzer result showing a blood alcohol level of 0.17 percent. The DMVH Hearing Officer rescinded the suspension, ruling that the Department of Motor Vehicles failed to establish probable cause because Trooper Jones's testimony and the Incident Report detailing another officer's observations of erratic driving constituted inadmissible hearsay. The Administrative Law Court reversed, finding the report admissible under precedent, but the South Carolina Supreme Court reinstated the Hearing Officer's decision, holding that the report was properly excluded as it contained subjective observations not qualifying for hearsay exceptions like business or public records. The core reasoning was that without admissible evidence of the initial traffic stop and field sobriety tests, the Department did not meet its burden under the implied consent statute to prove a lawful arrest. The court distinguished or declined to follow Summersell v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety on the hearsay issue.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina asking whether a certified educator employed as an administrator retains rights to a hearing under the Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act when denied a hearing to contest an administrative demotion and salary reduction. The South Carolina Supreme Court answered the question no. The court explained that section 59-24-15, enacted in 1998 as part of the South Carolina Educational Accountability Act, states that administrators retain rights as teachers but expressly grants no rights to the position or salary of administrator. The statute's plain language overrules the court's prior holding in Johnson v. Spartanburg County School Dist. No. 7, which had required procedural protections when a demotion resulted in a salary loss.

labor & employment

This case involved whether the estate of a patient who died from cancer could pursue a wrongful death claim against physicians for misdiagnosis, even though the patient's own medical malpractice claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations that started running on the date of diagnosis in 2003. The trial court dismissed the claim as untimely, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that under the Wrongful Death Act, the estate can only bring a claim if the decedent could have maintained an action at the time of death, and since the decedent's claim was already time-barred, the estate had no right to recovery. The court further held that the separate three-year limitations period for wrongful death actions, which begins upon the decedent's death, does not revive a previously barred claim.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability