South Carolina Lawyers Weekly July 4, 2022

SCLAWYERSWEEKLY.COM VOLUME 20 NUMBER 14 ■

Part of the

JULY 4, 2022 ■ $8.50

network

BEING FLEXIBLE

Columbia attorney elected to state Supreme Court board post ■ BY JASON THOMAS jthomas@scbiznews.com

Team members gather in Womble Bond Dickinson’s Greenville, S.C., office. Photo courtesy of Womble Bond Dickinson

Law firms adjust to a post-Covid workplace ■ BY TERI SAYLOR Correspondent Greg Strickland chuckles when he recalls the extraordinary measures his law firm’s residential real estate attorneys took just to collect signatures on closing packages when the Covid-19 pandemic shut down businesses everywhere in 2020. As firm administrator at Ragsdale Liggett in Raleigh, Strickland describes an odd scene of vehicles lined up outside the firm’s office as new homeowners and attorneys, clad in masks and gloves, completed closings through car windows. “Normally, our real estate practice does about 200 home closings a month, which means there are 200 groups of buyers and sellers, family

From left: Jenny Baker, paralegal; Joe Raad, attorney; and Nikki Harris, office administrator, often work remotely, but enjoy gathering at the Morton & Gettys office on occasion post-pandemic. Photo by Robin Owens

members and kids who come into our office, but for a year-and-a-half we didn’t see any of them,” he said in a recent phone interview.

Instead, attorneys got creative and found a way to change all their processes. Clients would pull up in the parking lot, call the office to say they were downstairs, and their lawyers would take their closing packages to their car window and hand them over, along with their phone number to call if they have questions, Strickland said. “It was the wildest thing to see,” he said. “It was just lawyers down there with clipboards helping people purchase $500,000 homes while sitting in their cars.” Now, two years later, Ragsdale Liggett and other firms are finding their way to a new normal, no longer S e e Po s t - Cov i d P a g e 5 ►

Columbia, S.C.-based Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd P.A. announced in a news release that Ron Scott was elected to serve a three-year term on the Board of Directors for the South Carolina Supreme Court Historical Society. The South Carolina Supreme Court Historical Society’s mission is to study, preserve, and collect the history of the courts, the judiciary, the legal profession, the judicial deve- Ron Scott lopment of the rule of law, and judicial independence in South Carolina, as well as to educate the public about that history, according to the release. Active in the community, Scott also serves on the boards for Prisma Health – Midlands, Prisma Health Richland Memorial Hospital and the Midlands Education and Business Alliance (MEBA), the release stated. Scott’s practice focuses on public finance, planning and zoning, local government and economic development matters. He also serves as bond counsel to housing developers for low-income housing projects assisted through state and federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and as issuer’s counsel to local public housing authorities for private activity housing revenue bonds, according to the release. Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd provides business, litigation and financial legal services to local, national and international clients, and is one of the largest law firms in South Carolina.

‘Broad powers’ apply to residuary estate ■ BY HEATH HAMACHER The personal representatives of a woman’s estate did not breach a fiduciary duty when they used their broad discretion to make distributions under a will’s residuary clause, a divided South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled. The June 15 ruling reverses the state’s Court of Appeals, which upheld a probate court’s finding that a section of the will governed only the distribution of specific assets and did not apply to the residuary estate. Justice Kaye Hearn wrote for the high court that

nothing in the will or jurisprudence states the broad powers are limited to specific requests. She called the lower courts’ conclusion “exactly backwards.” “The personal representatives were bound to carry out the specific requests in the will and, despite the broad grant of authority in § 10.6, they had no discretion to alter them,” Hearn wrote. “Rather than not applying to the distribution of the residuary estate, it is clear this is precisely where those broad powers could be exercised.” Chief Justice Donald Beatty and Justices John Few and George James concurred in the decision.

Receiving the residual

Testatrix Jacquelin Stevenson died in 2007 and left behind six children: four from her marriage to Thomas Stevenson, a son from a previous marriage, and a stepdaughter (Stevenson’s daughter from a previous marriage). Her last will and testament devised all real property in her estate to her four children by Stevenson and made bequests of $400,000 to the stepdaughter, respondent Genevieve Felder, and James King, her son from the previous marriage. In addition to the real property—houses in S e e B r o a d Po w e r s P a g e 6 ►

INSIDE VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS

VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS

COMMENTARY

Medical transport company to pay $2.5M in negligence claim

Estate of man paralyzed, killed settles for $4.5M

Change in user fees puts counties on a bumpy road

Page 3

Page 3

Page 7

2 / NEWS

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I Ju ly 4, 2022

South Carolina Bar swears in new president Columbia attorney J. Hagood Tighe took is the new president of the South Carolina Bar. He was sworn in by U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs during the SC Bar’s Annual Assembly at Central Energy in Columbia in May. An experienced labor and employment law attorney, Tighe is a partner at Fisher Phillips in the firm’s Columbia office and co-chair of the firm’s national Wage and Hour practice group, according to a post on South Carolina Bar’s website. As part of his remarks, Tighe emphasized that he is “proud to be a South Carolina lawyer” and that he was proud of his fellow Bar members and the leadership and service they provide to their communities, according to the post. He also applauded the hard work of South Carolina’s judges and lawyer legislators who work to ensure the rule of law. “My practice takes me all over the country, and we are extremely fortunate in the Palmetto State to have a community of lawyers that are incredibly collegial and collaborative,” Tighe said. “Our strength is our collective energy, collaboration and willingness to serve our communities and improve the profession. I am proud to be a South Carolina lawyer and look forward to working with colleagues to make

J. Hagood Tighe is the new South Carolina Bar president. Photo via SC Bar

a difference in our state.” Tighe is certified by the South Carolina Supreme Court as a specialist in employment and labor law, according to the post. At Fisher Phillips, he is an active member of the firm’s class and collective action practice. In recent years, he has handled over 40 class and collective actions throughout the country, many of which involve wage and hour issues. Tighe also has extensive experience defending single plaintiff lawsuits alleging wrongful discharge, discrimination, harassment, and

retaliation. While he maintains an active litigation practice, he also focuses on providing practical and proactive advice designed to minimize the risk of litigation. Tighe is a recipient of the Carolyn Holderman Vision Award by the Central Carolina Community Foundation for his leadership as chairman and was recognized by the Richland County Bar Association with its Civic Star Award, according to the post. He was also a recipient of the Silver Compleat Lawyer Award from the University of South Carolina School of Law

Alumni Association. This award recognizes alumni who have made significant contributions to the legal profession and who exemplify the highest standard of professional competence, ethics, and integrity. Tighe has served on the SC Bar Board of Governors, as chair of the House of Delegates and has held numerous leadership positions including chair of the Employment and Labor Law Section and the Conventions and Continuing Legal Educations Committees, according to the post. He is a regular presenter at continuing legal education seminars. Other executive officers for 2022-2023 are Russell T. Infinger of Greenville, president elect; Shaheena R. Bennett of Moncks Corner, treasurer; Christopher R. Koon of Columbia, secretary; Lindsay A. Joyner of Columbia, House of Delegates chair; and Mary E. Sharp of Beaufort, immediate past president. New Board of Governors members are Frank L. Eppes of Greenville, Kenneth S. Generette of Conway, Taylor D. Gilliam of Columbia, Greg Ohanesian of Bennettsville, Nekki Shutt of Columbia, Jeanmarie Tankersley of Greenville, and Sheila M. Willis of Columbia.

Guide released on accessing opioid settlement funds ■ BY JASON THOMAS jthomas@scbiznews.com The South Carolina Institute of Medicine and Public Health (IMPH), in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services (DAODAS), has released information on the recent opioid settlement and IMPH’s new report: “South Carolina’s Guide to Approved Uses for Investing Opioid Settlement Funds.” The report includes recommendations by a group of subject matter experts and is meant to serve as a resource for county and municipal policymakers on appropriate strategies that can be funded by South Carolina opioid settlement funds from this and future settlements, an IMPH news release stated. On Feb. 25, the National Prescription Opiate Litigation Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC) finalized settlements totaling $26 billion with the “Big Three” drug distributors — AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson — and opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, the release stated. Fifty-two states and territories and thousands of local governments across the country signed on to the agreement. In addition to the national agreements, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson worked with the state’s counties and eligible municipalities to allocate more than $360 million coming to South Carolina over the next 18 years, according to the relase. Through an agreement reached by Wilson and the litigating counties, 92% of these funds will be used to directly address the opioid crisis. As part of the South Carolina

A news conference was held recently to release information related to the opoid settlement and disbersment procedure of funding. Photo via INPH

Opioid Settlement Allocation Agreement, the state has enacted legislation to allow settlement funds to be sent to approved counties and municipalities and created the South Carolina Opioid Recovery Fund Board to manage and disburse the settlement funds, the release stated. The board will be comprised of nine members who will be appointed and representative of the four regions of the state. IMPH’s report suggests that all funds in the South Carolina Opioid Recovery Fund should be used for one or more of the following approved opioid remediation uses: • Naloxone or other FDA-approved drug to reverse opioid overdoses.

• Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) distribution and other opioid-related treatment. • Treatment for pregnant and postpartum women. • Expanding treatment for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS). • Expansion of warm hand-off programs and recovery services. • Treatment for incarcerated population. • Prevention programs. • Expanding syringe service programs. • Evidence-based data collection and research analyzing the effectiveness of the abatement strategies within the state. These core strategies will sup-

port treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and any co-occurring Substance Use Disorder or Mental Health (SUD/MH) conditions through evidence-based or evidenceinformed programs or strategies, the release stated. For more information visit imph.org. IMPH and DAODAS convened the following subject matter experts to develop this report: • Christina M. Andrews, PhD Associate Professor Department of Health Services Policy and Management Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina • Kathleen T. Brady, MD, PhD Distinguished University Professor Director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute Medical University of South Carolina • Sara Goldsby, MSW, MPH Agency Director, South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services • Alain H. Litwin, MD, MPH Executive Director, Prisma Health Addiction Medicine Center Vice Chair of Academics and Research, Department of Medicine, Prisma Health Professor of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine – Greenville Professor, Clemson University School of Health Research • Edward Simmer, MD, MPH, DFAPA Agency Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control For more information on the settlement, the contributors and more, access the full report.

VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS / 3

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I July 4, 2022

Medical transport company to pay $2.5M in negligence claim ■ BY HEATH HAMACHER Her attorneys report that a woman who was injured when her wheelchair overturned has settled her case against the medical transport company for $2.5 million. Kenneth Berger and Brad Lanford of the Law Office of Kenneth Berger and Brett Woron of Woron & Dhillon, both of Columbia, report that on Sept. 10, 2020, their 51-year-old client was being taken to a medical appointment when the incident occurred. The attorneys said that the transport driver was on her cell phone during the ride and as she wheeled the plaintiff, a leg amputee, down the van ramp. Berger said that as the driver talked on her phone, the wheelchair picked up speed and flipped back onto the pavement. “When the wheelchair flipped backward, the plaintiff’s right hand got crushed between the wheel itself and the chair,” Berger said. “Only after the incident did the medical transport driver get off her cell phone. The plaintiff lay helpless on the pavement. She was embarrassed and in pain.” Many details of the case, including the parties’ names, venue, and defense counsel, were withheld due to a confidentiality agreement. Orthopedic specialists performed minor surgery on the woman’s middle finger, which later

Kenneth Berger

Brett Woron

became infected and required two debridement procedures. The woman underwent occupational therapy but has not regained Brad Lanford full function of her hand and finger. “Her prior leg amputation had never stopped this woman from being the mom, grandma, and person she wanted to be,” Berger said. “She had learned to live with it. Unfortunately, having full use of her hand taken away—when coupled with the prior amputation—made the most meaningful parts of her life difficult, if not im-

possible.” Berger said that the plaintiff was a proud woman and head of her household who lost her ability to dress herself and cook for the family. Most frustrating, Berger said, was knowing that someone valued a phone call more than her safety. “The same medical transport company that caused the plaintiff harm also chose not to answer

SETTLEMENT REPORT — NEGLIGENCE

Amount: $2.5 million Injuries alleged: Crushed hand with multiple debridements Case name: Withheld Court: Withheld Mediator: Karl Folkens of Florence Date of settlement: May 31 Attorney(s) for plaintiff: Kenneth Berger and Brad Lanford of the Law Office of Kenneth Berger and Brett Woron of Woron & Dhillon, both of Columbia Attorney(s) for defendant: Withheld the lawsuit,” Berger said. “At the damages hearing, the plaintiff gave heartfelt and at times heartbreaking testimony that highlighted her physical pain, mental anguish, and lost enjoyment of life,” Berger said. “Medical bills, which were the least meaningful of the woman’s damages, were not sought. Instead, she was able to speak to the most valuable asset in her life – family – and we were able to demonstrate how that greatest of all assets had been damaged.”

Estate of man paralyzed, killed settles for $4.5M ■ BY HEATH HAMACHER The estate of a man killed in a rear-end collision on Interstate 26 has settled his claims for $4.5 million, his attorney reports. Jeff Gerardi of the Joye Law Firm in Summerville said that the man, a 45-year-old military retiree, was stopped in traffic on an on ramp in August 2021 when his vehicle was struck from behind by the defendant, who was working at the time. The impact pushed the victim’s vehicle into the vehicle in front of him. The man suffered mutiple injuries, including a broken neck that paralyzed him from the waist down despite emergency cervical fusion surgery. Many of the case’s details, including names of

Jeff Gerardi

the parties, venue, and defense counsel, were withheld due to a confidentiality agreement. The man was placed into a medically induced coma and suffered complications that necessitated life support. “After 11 days, the claimant requested to be taken off of life support and passed away,” Gerardi wrote in an email to Law-

yers Weekly. Gerardi said that the at-fault driver had $100,000 in liability coverage but that his employer had $1 million in liability coverage and a $10,000 umbrella policy.

SETTLEMENT REPORT — MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH

Amount: $4.5 million Injuries alleged: Death Case name: Withheld Court: Withheld Mediator: Sam Clawson Date of settlement: April 13 Insurance carrier: Withheld Attorney(s) for plaintiff: Jeff Gerardi, Joye Law Firm in Summerville Attorney(s) for defendant: Withheld

Law firm works to aid Camp Lejeune water contamination victims ■ BY JASON THOMAS jthomas@bizjournals.com The U.S. Congress has passed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which applies to anyone who lived, worked, or served at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 to 1987, including military personnel, guardsmen, reservists, military family members, and civilian employees who worked on the base, according to a news release from Beasley Allen. The act is designed to help anyone who suffered injuries or death from exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune to bring a claim within two years from when the act becomes effective, the release stated. President Joe Biden is expected to sign the Act in the coming weeks. Beasley Allen lawyers are working with clients eligible for relief under this Act and are pursuing litigation against the federal government on their behalf. “Our clients and others dedicated their lives to serving our country; in return, they were poisoned with hazardous chemicals and left to suffer life-threatening injuries,” said Beasley Allen attorney Julia Merritt in the release. From 1953 to 1987, more than one million military service personnel and their families were exposed to contaminated water at Marine Corps

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act helps anyone who has suffered from exposure to contamincated water at the military base. Photo via U.S. Marine Corps

Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) New River in North Carolina, according to the release. The water was contaminated with volatile organic compounds, degreasers, chemicals used on heavy machinery, and more than 70 other highly toxic substances. The government knew about this contamination but took no action, ignoring warnings from experts, site inspections and reports, and comments from military service members and their families

that the water tasted of chemicals. “Sixty-eight years after the contamination period started and 34 years after it ended, Congress finally acknowledged the damage the United States caused to its military population at Camp Lejeune and MCAS New River. Now, victims have only a short time to bring claims,” said Beasley Allen attorney Trisha Green in the release. “Unfortunately, many of the victims are unaware of this Act.” Any person that resided at Camp

Lejeune or MCAS New River for at least 30 days between August 1953 and December 1987 and has a serious illness, miscarriage, or birth defect is potentially eligible for disability, health care, and compensation. Common injuries include cancers of the bladder, breast, cervix, esophagus, kidney liver, lung, ovaries and stomach, as well as birth defects and birth injuries, miscarriages, multiple myeloma and other myelodysplastic syndromes, adult leukemia, aplastic anemia and other bone barrow conditions, Parkinson’s disease, renal toxicity and neurobehavioral effects, according to the release. The contaminated water was used for drinking, cooking and bathing in enlisted family housing, barracks, schools, base hospitals, recreational areas, and administrative offices, the release stated. Any individual who was present at Camp Lejeune during these years, including veterans, family members, civilian workers, reservists, and guardsmen may be eligible for relief under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. Beasley Allen lawyers representing the plaintiffs are Toxic Torts Section Head Rhon Jones, Matt Petitt, Merritt, and Green. For more information visit www. beasleyallen.com.

4 / NEWS

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I Ju ly 4, 2022

Greenville firm extends reach across Carolinas with merger ■ BY JASON THOMAS jthomas@scbiznews.com Greenville, S.C.-headquartered Kim and Lahey Law Firm has broadened its footprint in the Southeast. With the addition of two new attorneys, as well as combining with another firm and adding a new location, Kim and Lahey has welcomed attorneys Molly Hamilton Cawley and Casey Martens from MHC Law LLC to its North Carolina office, as well as B.C. Killough and Ernest B. Lipscomb III to its Charleston office, a Kim and Lahey news release stated. Moving forward, the firm will operate under the tradename Kim, Lahey & Killough. These additions expand the firm’s geographical reach, enhancing its capabilities in providing legal services to companies ranging from startups and early ventures to established international markets throughout the Carolinas, the release stated. Additionally, this growth broaden the industries the firm can serve, including manufacturing, software, energy, finance, hospitality, tourism and technology, the release stated. Key practice areas will include intellectual property, business, and commercial litigation, commercial transactions, employment, corporate and business matters, mergers and acquisitions, contracts and cybersecurity.

North Carolina

Adding Hamilton Cawley and Martens to the team continues the active promotion of the firm’s commitment to improve diversity in this field. The expansion into North Carolina has been secured by a new office location in Brevard, N.C. The practice areas of the firms are complementary and will strengthen its presence in the South and North Carolina economies, according to the release. “The practice strengths, collaborative culture and focus on providing exceptional client-centric services will help us to deliver even greater value to our clients. We’re confident that this combination will accelerate our growth and lead to long-term, sustained success,” Doug Kim said in the release.

About Molly Hamilton Cawley

Hamilton Cawley has been advising clients and litigating cases

Molly Hamilton Cawley

Casey Martens

for more than 15 years. Since clerking, Molly has been a business litigator, employment, and transactional attorney whose practice is marked by a depth and breadth in many areas of the law, including contract matters, employment law, fraud and business torts, shareholder/ partner/member disputes, and insurance law and ERISA. Hamilton Cawley has a multi-jurisdictional practice and is licensed in South Carolina, Minne-

The practice strengths, collaborative culture and focus on providing exceptional client-centric services will help us to deliver even greater value to our clients. Doug Kim

sota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Furthermore, she is admitted in the following federal courts: District of South Carolina, District of Minnesota, Southern and Northern Districts of Iowa, Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin and District of Nebraska. Hamilton Cawley focuses her law practice in the areas of employment litigation, business litigation, life, health, and disability insurance, ERISA litigation, business transactions and appeals. Molly is a member of the South Carolina CLE Committee, the South Carolina Trial and Appellate Advocacy Committee, the Federal Bar Association, South Carolina Bar Association, Charleston

County Bar Association, South Carolina Women Lawyers, and Charleston County Lawyers Club. B.C. Killough

About Casey Martens

Casey Martens brings a mix of interests and experience in public service and small-business restaurant management to her litigation contact and employment law practice. Previously, MarErnest B. tens served as an inLipscomb tern and a paralegal in a wide variety of legal areas, including product liability, probate, the SC Department of Health and Environment, and the US District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The South Carolina Lowcountry

The inclusion of Killough and Lipscomb III in Charleston brings two legal powerhouses, the release stated. For over 30 years, Killough has provided legal services in the areas of patents, trademarks, copyrights, commercial transactions, litigation, and mediation to his clients. He is a Senior Fellow with the Litigation Counsel of America, is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale Hubbell. Killough and his co-counsel Lip Lipscomb both previously served as adjunct professors of the patent law course at the University of South Carolina School of Law. Lipscomb is the author of the seminal eleven-volume treatise in the patent field, “Lipscomb’s Walker on Patents”, and “Lipscomb’s Patent Claims.” He has also testified as an expert witness in numerous patent cases. Lipscomb is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale Hubbell. “We are excited to bring the comprehensive knowledge of both Bill and Lip to the firm and look forward to further enhancing the legal services we offer to our existing and future clients,” Kim said. “With this new expansive presence in both Carolinas, Kim Lahey & Killough not only gains a larger geographical footprint but increases our resource networks, enabling us to provide expanded the legal service offering to our clients.”

Collins & Lacy P.C., a South Carolina business defense law firm, announced that construction attorney, James L. Williams, has been elevated to shareholder status. “We are pleased to recognize the achievements of Jamie with this elevation,” President Christian Stegmaier said in a news release. “He exemplifies dedication to his clients, high-quality legal work and an acumen for business development.”

Williams first began his work with Collins & Lacy in 2014 where he served as a law clerk while completing his law degree at the UniJames versity of South Carolina, accordWilliams ing to the release. In 2016, Williams returned to Collins & Lacy as a full-time associate with a concentration in construction law. Williams assists his clients in every step of the legal process, and

■ PUBLISHER Liz Irwin lirwin@bridgetowermedia.com ■ EDITOR Jason Thomas jthomas@scbiznews.com ■ EDITORIAL Heath Hamacher, Reporter hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com Scott Baughman, Digital Media Manager sbaughman@mecktimes.com ■ ADVERTISING Sheila Batie-Jones, Advertising Account Executive sbatie-jones@sclawyersweekly.com ■ ACCOUNTING & ADMINISTRATIVE Michael McArthur, Business Manager mmcarthur@bridgetowermedia.com ■ CIRCULATION Disa Ehrler, Audience Development Manager dehrler@bridgetowermedia.com Circulation: 1-877-615-9536 service@bridgetowermedia.com ■ PRODUCTION & OPERATIONS Bradley Redmond, Director of Production Ryan O’Shea, Production Supervisor John Reno, Production Specialist

©2022 BridgeTower Media. Material published in South Carolina Lawyers Weekly is compiled at substantial expense and is for the sole and exclusive use of purchasers and subscribers. The material may not be republished, resold, recorded, or used in any manner, in whole or in part, without the publisher’s explicit consent. Any infringement will be subject to legal redress. South Carolina Lawyers Weekly (USPS #020216) is published biweekly every other Monday with General Statewide Circulation by South Carolina Lawyers Weekly at 130 N. McDowell St. Unit B, Charlotte NC 282042411. (919) 829-9333, (800)-876-5297. Periodicals postage paid at Charlotte, NC 28228-9998. Subscriptions Rates: $369 per year.

LAWYERS IN THE NEWS Collins & Lacy adds new shareholder

"Helping lawyers practice better, more efficiently, and more profitably."

Website: www.sclawyersweekly.com

works directly with individuals and businesses across all areas of the construction industry, including general contractors, subcontractors, developers, architects, engineers and product manufacturers, the release stated. With firsthand experience working in the construction industry prior to his legal career, Williams is knowledgeable about the issues that may arise in construction litigation and can provide quality legal guidance to those in the industry that need counsel, the release stated.

POSTMASTER: Electronic Service Requested, send address changes to South Carolina Lawyers Weekly, Subscription Services, P.O. Box 1051 Williamsport, PA, 17703-9940 service@bridgetowermedia.com South Carolina Lawyers Weekly is a publication of BridgeTower Media, 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 900, Minneapolis, MN 55402.

NEWS / 5

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I July 4, 2022

POST-COVID / Being flexible key to post-Covid space C o nt inu e d f r o m 1 ►

resorting to drive-by document signings and other extraordinary measures to keep their clients satisfied. Yet, among all the pivoting, converting, shifting and social distancing, many firms have discovered a silver lining and have learned that some of the desperate measures they took during the pandemic led to new and better ways to operate. Among the most popular new office protocols is the work-at-home or hybrid office arrangement, made possible through cloud computing and virtual meeting platforms like Zoom, Slack and WebEx, according to Camille Stell, president and CEO of Lawyers Mutual Consulting & Services of Raleigh. “Thanks to online meeting platforms, attorneys found they are no longer tethered to their offices and can work from anywhere,” she said in a phone interview. Technology enabling people to work remotely, coupled with a strong job market, has caused people to rethink where, how, and why they work, Stell wrote in an article for the Carolina Paralegal News. “Employees expect flexibility from their employers,” she wrote. “Today, we have collaboration tools that allow us to stay in touch, and our business results will prove our employees are productive.” The myriad of user-friendly digital tools has in some ways leveled the playing fields for law firms, large and small. Ragsdale Liggett, a smaller firm, with 27 attorneys embraced technology as a lifeline during the pandemic and is relying on it today. “Cloud-based systems and online document management are two of the most important technology changes that have promoted a work-from-anywhere situation for us,” Strickland said. The five attorneys and staff at New Direction Family Law are back to their pre-pandemic lives. While they are fully functional in their Raleigh office, they are keeping the hybrid work option open because they learned that working at home was not a stretch, said Jennifer Bordeaux, director of public relations. They have had digital systems in place since before the pandemic. “We’ve always had laptops, and our systems are all cloud-based, which makes it easy for our folks to work remotely when they have to,” Bordeaux said. Virtual meeting platforms have been a big plus for her firm, which handles divorces, child custody disputes, domestic violence and other family law matters. Zoom is the platform of choice for mediations, and Bordeaux can’t imagine life without the efficiencies the use of WebEx created for scheduling calendar calls. “Using WebEx for the calendar calls is much easier, better, and time-saving than having all the attorneys appear in court in person to find out when they are going to appear for their cases,” she said. While any law firm would embrace systems that make work more efficient and less costly for attorneys, it’s really the clients that matter. At NC Planning, a small Raleigh firm with four attorneys, clients dictate how they want to interact with their attorneys, said Cameron Heinsohn, director of business development. During the pandemic, the firm,

Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP Chair and CEO Betty Temple (right) and Greenville Partner Michael Bogle. Photo courtesy of Womble Bond Dickinson

which focuses on financial and estate planning faced specific challenges for serving clients that typically value face-to-face contact with their legal team, she said. Still, a sector of their client base appreciates the ability to conduct their business virtually. And for some clients, that ability has led them to take care of important tasks they’ve put on the back burner for years. “Because we are either advising clients on their own personal business or on their estate plan or walking them through the loss of a loved one, some prefer a more personal approach,” Heinsohn said. “We also have busy clients who have had estate planning on their to-do list for along time and the ability to meet with us online makes it more convenient for them to cross that item off their list.” McGuireWoods, a global law firm with over 200 attorneys working in its Raleigh and Charlotte offices, had just moved into new office space in Raleigh two months before pandemic lockdowns started in 2020. In addition to creating flexible systems, some law firms have designed their office spaces to accommodate social distancing, making their environments safe for attorneys, staff and clients to meet one-on-one or in small group settings. McGuireWoods’ new offices occupy 41,375 square feet on two floors in the new FNB Building in downtown Raleigh, says managing partner Mary Nash Rusher. “We have been trying to have an open house, and every time we start planning, there’s a new Covid spike,” Rusher said. “It’s been over two years and we still haven’t had our open house.” While the firm could not have predicted the pandemic, the new offices showcase a modern, open floorplan, which has helped with social distancing. “We have a strong estate planning practice and many of our clients are elderly,” Rusher said. “And when we have people in the office signing wills, we can use the largest room available and spread everyone out.” Robin Owens, chief operating officer at Morton & Gettys in Rock Hill remembers meeting with her colleagues on a Sunday afternoon in March 2020 figuring out how they were going to respond to the pandemic as schools and businesses began shutting down. A small firm with 14 attorneys, the office wasn’t set up for employees to work remotely. “We had a couple of people who had laptops, but by and large, everyone was still using a desktop computer, and our software was on local servers,” she said. The firm was already in the pro-

cess of seeking out a system for practice management and accounting, so sparked by stay-home orders, they moved quickly to cloud-based software, and today, two years later, the firm offers a more flexible workplace. Everyone at the firm has embraced the changes. “We are no longer buying new desktop computers, and as they get to the

ences factor into the post-pandemic office culture. “Those of us who have been working in the profession for a long time often wonder how you can create a culture without being together in person for some significant amount of time,” she said. But when she views the way younger attorneys communicate, she notices a shift that bodes well for the future. “Our younger lawyers are much more used to communicating by text and email and on videos, and now that our firm has had to learn to communicate that way too, we believe are going to be more competitive in attracting smart young talent,” Rusher said. Betty Temple, chair and CEO of Womble Bond Dickenson-US also credits her firm’s increasingly flexible workplace with the ability to attract the best and the brightest. “Our philosophy has been to find solutions that work best for team members, rather than ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches,” she said. “We are in a highly competitive market for top talent, and the firms that are willing to work with

Hedrick Gardner recently moved into a new space in Charlotte’s Rotunda building that emphasizes collaboration. Photo by Jeremy DeHart

end of their lifespan, we are replacing them with laptops,” she said. “I really do think the pandemic forced us to take some necessary steps that we ultimately would have taken anyway, because it has created a better employee environment because it gives them flexibility to work when they are not in the office.” Today, most of the attorneys and staff like the new hybrid work arrangement, including Owens, who appreciates the convenience flexibility brings. “We have found if someone has a cold, if they fall and break an ankle or if they have a sick child at home, they don’t have to worry about trying to navigate into the office, and they can just work at home,” she said. “That has been a great thing for our working parents.” And over time, Owens has noticed a subtle evolution in the firm’s culture. “I think there’s more acceptance now of people working remotely while staying productive and engaged,” she said. “Still, many of our staff and attorneys enjoy coming to the office to work on most days because we missed each other during the pandemic.” Stell has found that firm culture is important, but so is flexibility and adaptability. “Rather than lament the old ways, define what is important about your firm culture,” she said. “Is the collegiality? Is the open-door policy? None of these things have to change.” At large firms, like McGuireWoods with multiple offices, firm culture is relationship driven, both internally and externally, regardless of the platform, Rusher said. She also notes a striking difference in how generational differ-

team members on their work-life needs are far better positioned to recruit and retain the best people.” Womble Bond Dickinson, with offices across the United States and the U.K., employs over 300 attorneys in its North Carolina and South Carolina offices. Temple believes that a positive work environment is both more productive and successful and credits the pandemic for reinforcing that belief. “If you hire good people, trust them and empower them to make decisions, they will go above and beyond for your firm and its clients,” Temple said. And the same is true for smaller firm. Despite the challenges the pandemic and its related shutdowns have caused, companies with a strong culture which are intentional about nurturing connections will persevere, Heinsohn said. “Companies with a good culture and good team willing to proactively work for their customers and clients and care about each other are going to prevail, regardless of whether your interactions with teammates and clients are in person or visa zoom,” she said. “Genuine caring always shows through.” At Morton and Gettys where the climb to a more flexible approach to work was a little steeper than others, Owens credits the pandemic with pushing change. “We needed to change, we found ways to change, and we learned we could be much more flexible than we ever thought possible,” she said. “I also think we learned if we could get through the pandemic, we could get through just about anything.”

6 / NEWS

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I Ju ly 4, 2022

BROAD POWERS / ‘Broad powers’ apply to residuary estate C o nt inu e d f r o m 1 ►

Wadmalaw Island and Lake Summit, North Carolina—Jacquelin Stevenson owned two properties not mentioned in the will, on Edisto Island (Bailey’s Island) and in Mount Pleasant (Paradise Island). The dispute centers around the Lake Summit property. From 1996-2006, Stevenson’s two sons with Thomas Stevenson stole millions from the estate, forfeiting their rights to take under their mother’s will and leaving the estate with insufficient funds for the $400,000 bequests to her stepchildren. This left Jacquelin’s daughters, Kathleen Turner and Jacquelin Bennett as the estate’s personal representatives. Because the bequest of the Lake Summit property to the sons failed, it was sent to the residuary with Bailey’s Island and Paradise Island, which were acquired after the execution of the will. Turner and Bennett, petitioners, had the residuary properties appraised. Lake Summit was appraised at $1.1 million, Bailey’s Island for $725,000, and Paradise Island for $390,000. Turner and Bennett pro-

posed splitting Lake Summit between themselves and the other two properties between themselves and Felder, with Felder receiving most of Bailey’s Island property. Felder does not dispute that the proposed distributions are of equal monetary value, only that she did not receive an equal share of Lake Summit.

Her intentions were clear

Felder argued before the probate court that the proposal was unfair because the petitioners failed to consider intangibles such as Lake Summit’s rental income (it consists of a home and adjacent lots), whereas Bailey’s Island and Paradise Island are unimproved lots. Turner and Bennett argued that that fact was considered in the appraisal of the properties, that the distribution was equal, and that section 10.6 of the will afforded them broad powers to distribute assets. The residuary clause provided that the “rest, residue, and remainder” of Stevenson’s property and estate be given to the six children “in equal shares.” Charleston County Probate Court Judge Tamara Curry agreed with

Felder, interpreting this as equal ownership interests rather than monetary values. Curry further found that the broad powers granted to the petitioners applied only to distributions of a specific asset and did not govern distributions under the residuary clause. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the petitioners were required to treat all beneficiaries equitably and fairly and to include intangible factors in their proposed distribution. Here, the appeals court opined, the petitioners’ proposition “serves no apparent purpose other than to favor themselves.” But the high court noted that the applicable section of the will gave the personal representatives power to make distributions “without the consent of any beneficiary … without making pro-rata distributions of specific assets” and that instead of elevating provisions of the residuary clause over the section of the will, the sections should be harmonized. “When that is done, it is clear the personal representatives had the power to distribute the residuary estate,” Hearn wrote. “This is precisely what they did. The burden was on re-

spondent to show that the proposed distribution was unfair or inequitable, which she did not do and likely could not do in light of her stipulation that the proposed distribution was of equal monetary value.” Justice John Kittredge dissented, writing that anyone acting in fiduciary relationship is not permitted to use the relationship to benefit their personal interests. “Petitioners ensured themselves an ownership interest in all the properties,” Kittredge wrote. “Under these facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation in finding evidence to support the breach of fiduciary duty finding and affirming the Court of Appeals on this issue.” Daniel Slotchiver, Stephen Slotchiver, and Andrew McCumber of Slotchiver & Slotchiver in Mount Pleasant represented Bennett and Turner. George McElveen III of Columbia represented Felder and the estate of James King. The 19-page decision is Bennett v. Estate of King (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-022-22). The full text of the opinion is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.

SC Bar food drive nets more than $25K in donations ■ BY JASON THOMAS jthomas@scbiznews.com The SC Bar Young Lawyers Division (YLD) raised $25,548 for food banks across the state as part of its virtual fundraising event, the SC Legal Feeding Frenzy. “Thanks to the generosity and good-natured competitive spirit of SC Bar members, our partner food banks will be able to provide approximately 102,192 meals to South Carolinians in need,” Paige Ornduff, presidentelect of the SC Bar YLD, said in a news release. “This is an especially critical time as food banks often see an increased need while school is out so we are truly appreciative of how our colleagues embraced this challenge to help others.” The SC Legal Feeding Frenzy encouraged law firms and legal organizations to form teams and compete to see who could raise the most money via an online portal during the last week of May, according to the releae. The team with the highest average individual donation and the winner of the 2022 SCLFF President’s Cup was Clawson & Staubes, LLC, with an average individual donation of $143.12. The following teams earned the most points in their respective divisions:

This is an especially critical time as food banks often see an increased need while school is out so we are truly appreciative of how our colleagues embraced this challenge to help others. Paige Ornduff, president-elect, SC Bar YLD

• Small Firm: Hall Booth Smith, LLC • Medium Firm: Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte • Large Firm: McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC • Public Interest/Government: 6th Circuit Solicitor’s Office - Lancaster Office Teams earned points for each dol-

The South Carolina Bar’s Young Laywers Division raised more than $25,000 for food banks across the state as part of its virtual fundraising event, the SC Legal Feeding Frenzy, which resulted in over 102,000 meals. Photo via SC Bar

lar donated and were also able to earn bonus points throughout the competition, the release stated. Donations also were received from number of individuals who were not associated with teams. The year’s event marks the SC

Bar YLD’s third Legal Feeding Frenzy and a continued partnership with Harvest Hope Food Bank, Lowcountry Food Bank, Second Harvest Food Bank of Metrolina, Golden Harvest Food Bank, and Feeding the Carolinas.

Charleston law firm gives back to animal shelter ■ BY JASON THOMAS jthomas@scbiznews.com The pets of a man who died from injuries sustained in an auto accident are benefiting from a donation made by a North Charleston law firm. The Joye Law Firm, a North Charleston-based personal injury law practice, presented a $100,000 memorial contribution to the Charleston Animal Society in early June. The firm represents the estate of Johnny Scott, a local man who was paralyzed and later died from injuries sustained in an automobile col-

lision, according to a Joye Law Firm news release. Even while hospitalized and fighting for his life, Scott’s main concern was making sure someone was caring for Gina and Luca, his two beloved Cane Corsos, the release stated. During their time of need, the Charleston Animal Society stepped up and provided care and shelter to the dogs, who were often seen playing together in the facility’s play yard. “For Johnny, like for many of us, his dogs were more than pets. They were family,” said attorney Jeff Gerardi, the attorney handling Scott’s case and a fellow dog-lover, in the

release. “This contribution will go to help other families and pets during difficult times, which we feel is an appropriate way to honor Johnny’s memory and help preserve his legacy.” The firm’s $100,000 will go toward revitalizing the shelter’s play yard, the same area that was so special for Gina and Luca during their time there, the release stated. The yard will be renamed in honor of Scott and his dogs. The shelter is at 2455 Remount Road. “The Animal Society did so much good during such a bad situation,” attorney Ken Harrell, managing

partner of the Joye Law Firm, which sits just over a mile from the shelter, said in the release. “The people of Charleston are extremely lucky to have a world-class animal rescue organization right here in our backyard. Our firm has been a proud supporter of theirs for the past 15 years, but getting a firsthand view of how they went above and beyond under these tragic circumstances gave us pause. “We knew we needed to recognize the good they did for our client and his dogs, as well as for the thousands of others in our community during their time of great need.”

COMMENTARY / 7

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I July 4, 2022

Change in user fees puts counties on a bumpy road ■ BY H.G. (BUTCH) KIRVEN JR. AND JOE PASSIMENT On June 30, 2021, counties were put in the unenviable position of having to face the potential loss of a stream of revenue that they have long dedicated to the needs of the public. The Burns v. Greenville County decision challenged user fees that have been in place for over three decades in South Carolina. These user fees, though nominal in cost, have made significant impacts to local communities throughout the state. Counties were granted the authority to impose uniform service charges in the Home Rule Act found in Section 4-9-30 of the Code. Prior to this Supreme Court opinion, road fees were specifically considered and deemed allowable by the Supreme Court in Brown v. County of Horry (1992) and Campbell v. City of Charleston (1997). In 1997, the General Assembly enacted Section 6-1-300 (6) which defines a service or user fee. Until 2021, the fees in question were authorized and counties were imposing such fees in good faith reliance on their interpretation of the Code and prior Supreme Court precedents. Counties are responsible for maintaining county roads which in some counties amounts to as many road miles as state maintained roads. The uniform user fees has been widely accepted as the fairest and most equitable way to provide for local roads. These fees are accounted for and kept separately

A court decision has challenged user fees that have been in place for over three decades in South Carolina, which aid infrastructure upkeep. DepositPhotos

from other county funds making it clear to everyone that the user fees are used only for the intended and stated purposes for which they were duly enacted. The Supreme Court in the Burns decision opined that the legislative intent of this section was that a fee payer must receive a different benefit from paying the fee, not merely a greater benefit. This opinion effectively outlaws many user fees, particularly road use fees, which will result in counties having no recourse but to increase property taxes to replace the revenue lost as a result of this decision. In addition, attorneys have seen the Burns decision as an

opportunity for class action lawsuits and are seeking ten times damages from county and municipal governments. These lawsuits also subject taxpayers to potentially large judgements ordered by the court to be paid for by property taxes. The road use fees in jeopardy range in cost from $10 to $50 per vehicle to the residents of South Carolina. This expense to tax payers pales in comparison to the revenue that would be required to be collected via property tax increases if such judgements against counties were to be successful. In other words, plaintiffs are suing local governments and potentially subjecting taxpayers to an expo-

nentially greater financial liability compared to the lesser financial burden that is currently imposed on them by the user fee. Most counties in South Carolina do not have the tax base to satisfy these potential judgements or pay for these services and would be forced to raise property taxes on their constituents to do so. For example, if a county charges its residents $15 per vehicle for a road use fee and this revenue generates three percent of its annual budget, if this county were subject to a judgment challenging their road use fee and seeking ten times damages, such a judgement would drain their budget, services provided to their citizens would have to be cut, and the county would be forced to raise property taxes to pay off the judgement and provide services. The increase in property taxes would surely be a greater financial impact on its citizens than the meager $15 fee that was in place. The Burns decision put local governments in the difficult position to find a legislative solution to a problem that was not foreseeable before 2021. This legislation, S. 233, is not a tax increase. In fact, for many counties, it is the only option available to avoid a potentially catastrophic tax increase on their citizens. H.G. (Butch) Kirven Jr. represents Dist. 27 on the Greenville County Council and is immediate past president. Joe Passiment is chairman of the Beaufort County Council.

The No Surprises Act’s transparency rules for health plans ■ BY BARRY ROSEN BridgeTower Media Newswires The federal No Surprises Act (NSA) generally protects patients from receiving large unanticipated bills for out-of-network care. To implement the NSA, transparency rules have been issued that require self-insured and insured health plans to include deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums on physical or electronic health insurance ID cards. These transparency rules also try to provide health plan participants with enough information to help lower the risk of receiving surprise medical bills. The transparency requirements were originally anticipated to apply to all health plans for plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021. However, because so little guidance has been issued to date, the secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury departments have chosen to delay or scale back enforcement on most of the new transparency requirements until new guidance is published. Brief explanations of each new transparency requirement and the anticipated extent of compliance and enforcement can be found below.

Annual reporting

The NSA requires plans to report annually certain information to the departments, including but not limited to: the 50 brand name prescription drugs pharmacies most frequently dispensed for claims for

each plan and the number of claims paid per drug; the 50 most costly prescription drugs per plan by total annual spending and annual amount spent per drug; the average monthly employer-paid premium and participant-paid premium; and the impact rebates, fees and other remuneration drug manufacturers paid to a plan, its administrators or service providers had on premiums for prescribed drugs. To date, no regulations have been issued, and enforcement will be deferred until then. However, plan sponsors are advised to comply by Dec. 27, 2022, for reporting years 2020 and 2021.

the same item or service. To date, no regulations have been issued; therefore, compliance has been deferred until further notice.

Provider directory

The NSA requires plans to offer participants health care price comparisons over the phone and online. No regulations have been issued; therefore, compliance has been deferred until 2023.

The NSA requires plan sponsors to establish, verify and timely update their provider/facility directory and establish a protocol for timely responses to inquiries about a provider’s/facility’s network status. Should a participant elect care based on inaccurate directory information, the plan may not impose a cost-sharing amount greater than the care received in-network. Moreover, payments must be applied against the participant’s deductible or out-of-pocket maximum as if the provider/facility was in-network. To date, no regulations have been issued; for now, a plan will be deemed compliant if it applies the AEB cost-sharing, deductible and out-of-pocket rules described above.

Advanced explanation

Gag clause ban

Price comparison

The NSA requires plans to provide participants an Advanced Explanation of Benefits (AEB) once a participant receives a “good faith” cost estimate for an item or service from a health care provider/facility. The AEB must show, among other things, the following: the amount the plan must pay, and any costsharing the participant must pay; whether the coverage for the item or service is subject to medical management techniques; and if out-ofnetwork, information on how the participant can learn more about innetwork providers/facilities offering

The NSA prohibits plan sponsors from entering an agreement with a provider, provider network, third-party administrator or other service providers that could restrict the plan from, among other things, furnishing provider-specific cost or quality of care information. Likely, beginning in 2022, plans will have to attest annually on compliance with the gag clause prohibition. To date, no regulations have been issued; therefore, until then, plans should comply using a good-faith reasonable interpretation of the law.

Continuity of care

The NSA requires plans to offer participants continuity of care for certain treatments if, during treatment, a provider’s/facility’s contract with the plan is terminated or changed in a way that eliminates the covered treatment. Treatments subject to this requirement include treatments for any “serious and complex condition,” inpatient care, scheduled nonelective surgery, terminal illness, or pregnancy. To date no regulations have been issued; until then, plan sponsors must apply the statutory requirements using a good faith reasonable interpretation of the law.

Balance billing

The NSA requires plan sponsors to make publicly available, post on a public website and include in each Explanation of Benefits with respect to an item or service, information in plain language on the prohibitions of balance billing, among other things. To date, no regulations have been issued; until then, plan sponsors are expected to implement the statutory requirements based on good-faith reasonable interpretation of the law. To assist with compliance, a model disclosure notice may be used, found on the CMS website. Barry F. Rosen is the chairman and CEO of the law firm of Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, LLC, leads the firm’s health care practice and he can be reached at 410-576-4224 or brosen@ gfrlaw.com.

8 / NEWS

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I Ju ly 4, 2022

Working remotely? Here’s some tax tips ■ BY JASON THOMAS jthomas@scbiznews.com The relief offered to out-of-state employers from South Carolina’s requirements to withhold taxes from wages for employees who temporarily work in the state due to Covid-19 will end on June 30, according to a news release from the South Carolina Department of Revenue. The end of the relief was previously announced with SC Revenue Ruling #22-3. This relief offered by the SCDOR since May 2020 began when many South Carolina residents who traveled out of state for work started working temporarily from home as a result of the pandemic, the release stated. Effective July 1, employers will have to withhold taxes from wages for all employees who work in South Carolina, including those who may still be temporarily working in the state due to Covid-19, according to the release. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in March 2022, 10% of workers were doing their jobs from home solely due to the Covid-19 pandemic, down from 13% in February 2022 and 11.1% in December 2021, according to the releae. Gallup estimated that as many as 45% of fulltime employees worked at least part of the time from home in September

Employers now have to withhold taxes from wages for all employees who work in South Carolina, including those working temporarily due to Covid-19. DepositPhotos

with remote employees who work in South Carolina, in general: • You are subject to South Carolina’s wage withholding laws. • You must register and pay South Carolina Withholding Tax. For full instructions, click the Can I help? button on MyDORWAY to open Dorwin, a virtual assistant, and enter remote employee. • ​If you are an employer in South Carolina and you hire employees who are not SC residents and work outside of South Carolina: Generally, the remote employees’ wages are not taxable in South Carolina since they are located out of state, the release stated. You may be required to withhold income taxes from the wages for the state the remote employee is physically located in. Some exceptions to the South Carolina’s withholding laws include:

of 2021. Though remote work directly related to Covid-19 may be declining, telecommuting options are becoming more popular with both employees and employers, the release stated. With remote work becoming more common, here are some tips for remote employees and their employers. If you live in South Carolina and work from home for an out-of-state employer: • South Carolina Income Taxes will be withheld from your paycheck, and

you will need to file a South Carolina Individual Income Tax return. • Residents in South Carolina who pay taxes both to South Carolina and another state may be eligible for a credit on their South Carolina Individual Income Tax return. • The amount of the credit is the lesser amount paid in taxes to South Carolina or the other state. • Claim this credit electronically using your filing software or with the SC1040TC if filing by paper. If you are an out-of-state employer

‘Tiger King’ star Doc Antle set to be released on bond

Court allows SC to enforce more restrictive abortion law

Matthews wins Democratic US Senate nod in South Carolina

Bond has been set for “Tiger King” star Bhagavan “Doc” Antle on charges he laundered more than half a million dollars. A federal judge in South Carolina on Monday set a $250,000 secured bond for Antle. Prosecutors said he would be released Tuesday and required to stay at his wildlife park near Myrtle Beach. Federal authorities say Antle and one of his employees laundered $505,000 over a four-month period by doling out checks from businesses they controlled. They each face up to 20 years in prison if convicted. Antle also faces more than a dozen charges in Virginia including animal cruelty and wildlife trafficking.

A law restricting abortions in South Carolina after six weeks of pregnancy can take effect immediately in the state. The U.S. District Court in South Carolina on Monday lifted its prior hold on the enforcement of a state law passed last year that bans most abortions if an ultrasound detects a so-called fetal heartbeat, usually around six weeks into a pregnancy. The decision was part of a wave of court action across the U.S. after Friday’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade. The new law replaces one that allowed abortions up to the 20th week of pregnancy.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — State Rep. Krystle Matthews has won the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. Matthews was the second-place finisher in a June 14 primary and defeated author and preservationist Catherine Fleming Bruce in Tuesday’s runoff. Matthews said she wants to change a toxic culture she says leads senators and others in power to strip away the rights of minorities and those who are in the most need of protection. Scott has been one of South Carolina’s more popular politicians. The Senate’s sole Black Republican had no primary opposition and has said this will be his last term if he is reelected.

• An employee who makes less than $1,000 in wages a year. • An employee who has requested a waiver of withholding requirements. • A military spouse who requests an exemption from South Carolina withholding under federal law. • Employees who perform certain agricultural services on a farm. • Workers who perform domestic services in a private residence. For more information visit dor. sc.gov.

NEWS BRIEFS SC House agrees to knock $25M computer out of $14B budget COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina General Assembly has overturned many of Gov. Henry McMasters budget vetoes. But they did agree with the biggest one, taking $25 million out of the $13.8 billion spending plan to try to help bring a super computer to Columbia. The money was set aside for what supporters called a quantum computing operation and set up a nonprofit to rent time on the machine to researchers and others. Both the House and Senate continued Tuesday afternoon to consider the 73 vetoes issued by the governor, taking about $53 million from from the nearly $14 billion budget set to start July 1.

Clarkson, Walsh & Coulter, a well-established insurance defense litigation firm with offices in Greenville, South Carolina and Charleston, South Carolina, seeks to hire a licensed South Carolina attorney for its Charleston office. We are a fast paced litigation office that specializes in the defense of individuals and businesses in all areas of civil litigation, including construction litigation, premises liability, insurance coverage and bad faith defense, and automobile negligence. The ideal candidate for this position will have 1-3 years of litigation experience. Please submit a cover letter, resume, and writing sample in confidence to jcarver@clarksonwalsh.com.

ATTORNEY

Plaintiff’s law firm has an immediate opening for an attorney in its default servicing/litigation department. Our growing dynamic law firm seeks an attorney with a minimum of 2 years of experience. Job duties entail the ability to handle all aspects of default servicing, including litigation, discovery, and motion practice, statewide. Attorney will be responsible for handling a caseload assigned by the firm, as well as developing their own clients. Attorney must be able to focus on providing exceptional client service and attention to details. Attorney must be comfortable using client-based and provided technology and software to help manage files. Salary is commensurate with experience. All resumes and inquiries will be held in strict confidence. Required Qualifications • 2-5 years of experience as an associate preferably in civil litigation; experience in HOA Collections, Real Estate, or Default Servicing preferred • Experience with hourly billing • Valid Bar License • Strong written and verbal communication skills • Ability to multi-task, work independently, and manage time effectively • Ability to travel for court appearance • Strong computer skills (Microsoft Office, excel) Send resumes to: management@finkellaw.com

OPINION DIGESTS / 9

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I July 4, 2022

Opinions Judges

Trusts & Estates

Discipline – Public Reprimand – Potential Disqualification – Deputy Sheriff Spouse

Wills – Asset Distribution – Executors’ Discretion – Standard of Review

Even though the respondent-magistrate made it a practice to disclose to litigants that his wife worked for the sheriff’s office, he failed (1) to disclose, when appropriate, that she supervised deputies involved in a particular matter; and (2) to allow the parties and their lawyers time to consider the question of remittal outside his presence or to ensure that any agreements to waive disqualification were placed on the record. Respondent’s misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline, and we accept the agreement for discipline by consent. Respondent is publicly reprimanded. In re Barker (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-021-22, 4 pp.) (Per Curiam) John Nichols and Carey Taylor Markel for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; Danny Oran Barker, pro se. S.C. S. Ct.

The testatrix’s will gave her personal representatives broad discretion in making distributions. Given such broad discretion, and despite the fact that the estate was unable to fulfill the testatrix’s specific bequest of $400,000 in cash to her respondent-stepdaughter, the personal representatives could divide the estate’s residue such that they received the only income-producing property while they split ownership with their half-sister of the estate’s unimproved lots. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, which upheld lower courts’ determinations that the personal representatives had breached their fiduciary duty. The will in this case needs no construction because its meaning is clear. The dispute is over the personal representatives’ distribution of specific residuary property, and

respondent has argued that “principles of equity control.” Accordingly, the standard of review is de novo. Section 10.6 of the will gave the personal representatives the power to make distributions “without the consent of any beneficiary . . . in cash or in specific property, real or persona., or an undivided interest, or partly in cash and partly in such property, . . . without making pro-rata distributions of specific assets.” There is nothing in the will nor in our jurisprudence that states these broad powers are limited to specific bequests. Nevertheless, the probate court held § 10.6 governed only the distribution of specific assets, and did not apply to the residuary estate. This conclusion is exactly backwards. The personal representatives were bound to carry out the specific bequests in the will and, despite the broad grant of authority in § 10.6, they had no discretion to alter them. Rather than not applying to the distribution of the residuary estate, it is clear this is precisely

where those broad powers could be exercised. This error of law by the probate court, affirmed by the circuit court and the Court of Appeals, negated the intent of the testatrix to afford broad authority to the personal representatives and infected the entire proceedings. Instead of elevating the provisions of the residuary clause over § 10.6, the two sections of the will should be harmonized. When that is done, it is clear the personal representatives had the power to distribute the residuary estate, without the consent of any beneficiary, and without making pro-rata distributions of specific assets. This is precisely what they did, and absent a breach of fiduciary duty, their proposed distribution should be upheld. The burden was on respondent to show that the proposed distribution was unfair or inequitable, which she did not do and likely could not do in light of her stipulation that the proposed distribution S e e P a g e 10 ►

SOUTH CAROLINA CHAPTER Check AVAILABLE DATES for the State’s Top-Rated Mediators at www.SCMEDIATORS.org

Ellen Adams Columbia (803) 255-0426

Jon Austen Charleston (843) 727-2271

Bob Calamari Myrtle Beach (843) 946-5660

Sam Clawson Charleston (800) 774-8242

Theron Cochran Greenville (864) 298-2721

Danny Crowe Columbia (803) 888-3936

Anne Culbreath Greenville (864) 672-3713

Cynthia Dooley Columbia (803) 227-4209

Vernon Dunbar Greenville (864) 239-6735

Earl Ellis Columbia (803) 260-0235

Eric Englebardt Greenville (864) 232-2329

Karl Folkens Florence (843) 665-0100

Amy Gaffney Columbia (803) 790-8838

Mills Gallivan Greenville (864) 271-5341

Harry Goldberg Columbia (803) 765-2935

Jack Griffeth Greenville (864) 349-2600

Mitch Griffith Beaufort (843) 521-4242

Rob Hassold Greenville (864) 325-7467

Richard Hinson Florence (843) 799-5599

Becky Laffitte Columbia (803) 231-7831

Regina H. Lewis Columbia (803) 790-8838

Bill Lyles Charleston (843) 696-6294

Stuart Mauney Greenville (864) 271-5356

David McCormack Charleston (843) 789-9153

Ben McCoy Columbia (803) 758-6000

Lee Plumblee Greenville (864) 235-2600

Darren Sanders Mt. Pleasant (843) 714-7661

Franklin Shuler Columbia (803) 227-4242

Lana Sims, Jr. Columbia (803) 995-4342

Ronald Stanley Columbia (803) 799-4700

Tom Stephenson Greenville (864) 370-9400

Matt Story Charleston (843) 577-2026

Walter B. Todd, Jr. Columbia (803) 753-7952

Ned Tupper Beaufort (843) 524-1116

Brad Waring Charleston (843) 277-3700

Derrick Williams Columbia (803) 929-0029

Thomas Wills Charleston (843) 727-1144

Check your preferred available dates online or schedule appointments directly with Academy Members, for free.

www.SCMediators.org

Need a top rated mediator or arbitrator outside of South Carolina? Please visit NADN’s free National Directory at www.NADN.org

10 / OPINION DIGESTS C o nt inu e d f r o m 9 ►

was of equal monetary value. We also cannot accept the argument that sentimental value and other intangibles should be permitted to defeat the proposed distribution because this would place an untenable burden on personal representatives and provide an unworkable framework going forward. Moreover, even if it were proper to consider the sentimental value and “other intangibles” urged by respondent, it is difficult to see how such an analysis would benefit respondent, who was an adult when the prized Lake Summit property was even acquired. Petitioners, on the other hand, grew up spending summers at Lake Summit. Reversed and remanded.

Dissent

(Kittredge, J.) We are presented with a factual finding—breach of fiduciary duty—in an action at law. As such, we are constrained by the “any evidence” standard of review. I would agree with the circuit court (and the Court of Appeals) that evidence in the record supports the probate court’s finding of breach of fiduciary duty. Anyone acting in a fiduciary relationship shall not be permitted to make use of that relationship to benefit his own personal interests. While the proposed distribution is stipulated to be of equal monetary value, counsel for petitioners summarily rejected a suggestion that petitioners flip the proposed division and allow respondent to receive outright the Lake Summit property. The rental income from the Lake Summit property more than covers all expenses associated with the property. The unimproved Bailey’s Island and Paradise Island properties produce no income and have upkeep expenses that exceed $25,000 annually. Based on petitioners’ distribution scheme, respondent—who did not receive her $400,000 bequest— is responsible for the lion’s share of those expenses. Moreover, while petitioners awarded themselves a property outright (the Lake Summit property), they did not reciprocate and similarly award respondent any property outright. Petitioners ensured themselves an ownership interest in all the properties. Under these facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation in finding evidence to support the breach of fiduciary duty finding and affirming the Court of Appeals on this issue. Bennett v. Estate of King (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-022-22, 19 pp.) (Kaye Hearn, J.) (John Kittredge, J., concurring in part & dissenting in part) Appealed from Charleston County Probate Court (Tamara Curry, J.) On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Stephen Michael Slotchiver and Andrew Joseph McCumber for petitioners; George McElveen for respondents. S.C. S. Ct.

Criminal Practice CSCM – Prior Conviction – Proffered Stipulation In order to prove defendant’s guilt of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree, the

state was required to prove either a prior conviction of an offense listed in S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-430(C) or that defendant had been ordered to register as a sex offender. When a prior conviction constitutes a statutory element of a crime, the state is not required to accept a defendant’s offer to stipulate to the conviction. We affirm defendant’s conviction of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree (CSCM). Even if we were to force the state to accept defendant’s offered stipulation, such an agreement would not dampen the prejudicial effect of the prior conviction. The jury would still have realized defendant was guilty of a prior sex crime when the trial court instructed them as to the elements of CSCM. Unlike the defendant in State v. Cross, 427 S.C. 465, 832 S.E.2f 281 (2019) (decided after defendant’s trial), defendant here did not seek a bifurcation of his trial – requiring the state to prove he was guilty of the underlying sexual battery before proving he was guilty of a prior sex crime. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting defendant’s prior conviction for first-degree rape or evidence that he was required to register as a sex offender. State v. Davis (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-034-22, 6 pp.) (Bruce Williams, C.J.) Appealed from Horry County Circuit Court (Benjamin Culbertson, J.) Adam Sinclair Ruffin for appellant; Alan McCrory Wilson, Joshua Abraham Edwards and Jimmy Richardson for respondent. S.C. App.

Criminal Practice Attempted Murder – Transferred Intent – Firing into Group After defendant was found guilty of attempted murder based on a theory of transferred intent, this court ruled that transferred intent does not apply to attempted murder. We nevertheless affirm defendant’s conviction because, when he pointed and fired a deadly weapon multiple times at a group of people he knew were in the line of fire, a rational juror could infer that defendant intended to murder whoever may have been injured in that group. Affirmed. State v. Williams (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-035-22, 6 pp.) (Blake Hewitt, J.) Appealed from Horry County Circuit Court (Steven John, J.) Joanna Katherine Delany for appellant; Alan McCrory Wilson, Donald Zelenka, Melody Jane Brown, Tommy Evans and Jimmy Richardson for respondent. S.C. App.

Criminal Practice Post-Conviction Relief – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Failure to Sever Charges Where evidence for a sexually explicit photo for a sexual exploitation charge would not have been admissible on other charges solicitation, dissemination, and delinquency of a minor charges, a defendant was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to seek a severance of the sexual exploitation charge. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part the denial of petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief.

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I Ju ly 4, 2022

Background

Petitioner was indicted for seconddegree sexual exploitation of a minor, criminal solicitation, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and disseminating harmful material to a minor. At trial, a state witness, Dorris Brown, testified that she took her granddaughter to visit petitioner’s mother, whom petitioner lived with. After their visit, the children claimed that petitioner had showed them photos of nude men on his cell phone. However, at trial, Brown testified that her granddaughters had actually claimed that there was a photo of a nude woman on petitioner’s cell phone. The children testified that they witnessed photos of women in bathing suits. The children’s mother later called police after petitioner gave their cousin his phone to use, where he claimed that he found what appeared to be a draft text to one of the children admitting his attraction. Police later arrested petitioner and recovered photos from his computer and email account, which detectives at trial testified included scantily dressed young girls, including one sexually explicit photo involving a young woman. The trial court instructed the jury to deliberate each of petitioner’s charges separately and to render separate verdicts for each charge. The jury convicted petitioner on each charge.

Petitioner Seeks Post-Conviction Relief

Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a consolidated trial for all four of his charges. Instead, petitioner argued that his sexual exploitation charge should have been tried separately from the other three charges. Petitioner claimed that if the charges had been tried separately, highly prejudicial explicit photograph relevant to the sexual exploitation charge would not have been admitted in trial on the other charges. Petitioner asserted that he requested his trial counsel move to sever the charges. Petitioner claimed that the jury considered his guilt on the sexual exploitation charge as indicative of his guilt for the other charges. The PCR court denied petitioner’s application, arguing that trial counsel was not ineffective because there was no reasonable basis to move for separate trials. The PCR court further ruled that petitioner was not prejudiced because the trial court had instructed the jury to consider each charge separately and to render separate verdicts for each charge.

Explicit Photograph Constituted Improper Propensity Evidence

On appeal, we reverse and remand in part. We agree with petitioner that trial counsel was ineffective in not moving to sever the sexual exploitation charge because it was unrelated to the other three charges, both sets of charges involved different facts and events, and the evidence for the sexual exploitation would not be admissible in a trial on the other three charges. We further agree that the failure to seek a separate trial for the sexual exploitation charge prejudiced petitioner because it allowed the jury to hear improper propensity evidence that could have affected their deliberations on the other three charges. We note that trial counsel failed to explain how the explicit photo would be minimized and admitted that if the jury found petitioner guilty of the sex-

ual exploitation charge it might be inclined to convict on the other charges. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. Tyler v. State (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-036-22, 16 pp.) (McDonald, J.) Appealed from the Circuit Court in Darlington County (Cooper, J). Victor R. Seeger and Laura Mary Caudy, Columbia, SC, for petitioner; Alan McCrory Wilson, Megan Harrigan Jameson, and Johnny Ellis James, Jr., Columbia, SC, for respondents. S.C. App.

Criminal Procedure Murder – Exclusion of Social Media Postings – Enhancement to LWOP Sentence – Prior Juvenile Offense Where defendant had previously been tried an adult and pled guilty to a most serious offense committed when defendant was a juvenile and defendant committed the present offense as an adult, we find no error in the trial court’s grant of the state’s motion for an enhanced LWOP sentence. We affirm defendant’s conviction and judgment of sentence.

Background

Emyle McDuffie approached Michael Lukie and Timothy Wilson and asked to borrow a pair of pants. Lukie offered to lend a pair, so he and McDuffie began walking towards Lukie’s apartment. As they were walking, a red car pulled up and called out to McDuffie. When McDuffie approached the car, Lukie saw defendant exit, ask McDuffie a question, and then pull out a gun and start shooting. Nearby residents heard the shooting and found McDuffie shot and lying on the grounds. McDuffie was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. Lukie was also shot in the hip but recovered. At the hospital, Lukie provided officers with a description of the vehicle but did not tell them that defendant was the shooter. Officers later caught up with defendant and apprehended him following a chase.

Defendant Convicted for Murder

Defendant was charged with murder, attempted murder, possession of a weapon during a violent crime, and failure to stop for police. The state notified defendant that it would seek a life without parole sentence on the murder and attempted murder charges under the recidivist statute. At trial, Lukie testified that he did not tell police that defendant was the shooter because he wanted to first tell McDuffie’s family and did not want to be labeled a snitch. Police never recovered the firearm used for the shooting, and forensic analysis could not confirm that all recovered bulled fragments were fired by the same gun but could confirm that all recovered shell casings were fired by the same gun. The trial court excluded defendant’s proffered evidence of Snapchat messages, expressing concern that the messages time stamps might have been manipulated. The jury convicted defendant on all charges. The trial court granted the state’s motion for an enhanced LWOP sentence under the recidivist statute due to his adult criminal conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill that defendant committed when he was 15. The trial court overruled S e e P a g e 11 ►

NEWS / 11

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I July 4, 2022

C o nt inu e d f r o m 10 ►

defendant’s objections based on his claims that the family court failed to make the necessary findings before transferring his case to general session court, and that using the conviction to enhance his current sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because his prior offense occurred when he was juvenile.

Trial Court Committed Harmless Error by Omitting Snapchat Messages

Defendant argued that the trial court erred in excluding the proffered Snapchat messages because the sender of the messages could authenticate the veracity of the messages’ time stamp. We agree. Although we note that the videos in the messages might not have been recorded at the time they were sent via Snapchat, the authentication standard is not high. But we hold that any error was harmless because the messages at most would have provided an alibi for another individual whom a witness claimed was involved in the shooting. We also note that there was other substantial evidence of defendant’s guilty.

No Error in Imposing an Enhanced Sentence under the Recidivist Statute

We further affirm the LWOP sentence imposed on defendant. We hold that defendant’s ABWIK conviction was valid because his guilty plea cured any procedural defects or claims of constitutional violations. We note that defendant’s PCR motion to withdraw his guilty plea for his ABWIK charge is still pending. We further note that defendant was tried as an adult on his ABWIK charge. Finally, we find no merit in defendant’s Eighth Amendment argument, as he was an adult when he committed the present murder that resulted in his LWOP sentence. Affirmed. State v. Hall (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-037-22, 15 pp.) (Konduros, J.) Appealed from the Circuit Court in Greenwood County. Susan Barber Hackett, Columbia, SC for appellant; Alan McCrory Wilson, Donald J. Zelenka, Melody Jane Brown, and W. Edgar Salter, III, Columbia, SC, and David Matthew Stumbow, Greenwood, SC, for respondent. S.C. App.

Spitz & Neville completes merger, changes name ■ BY JASON THOMAS jthomas@scbiznews.com Saxton & Stump has announced that its planned merger with Charleston, S.C.-based law firm Spitz & Neville is complete, and the former firm will now do business under the Saxton & Stump name, a Saxton & Stump news release stated. All of the firm’s five attorneys, including Steven Spitz, Elizabeth Palmer, Irish “Ryan” Neville, Jacqueline Egan and Eli Lachenman will practice as a part of Saxton & Stump, along with five other professionals in the office, which is now Saxton & Stump’s South Carolina office in Charleston, the release stated. The former firm had continued doing business as Spitz & Neville after the partnership between the two firms first was announced in June 2021, according to the release. Throughout the last year of transition, the office has continued integrating technical infrastructure and making significant hires, including Palmer as a shareholder, Egan as a senior counsel and Lachenman as an associate. “We’re extremely pleased to be able to officially bring the Saxton & Stump name to South Carolina,” Saxton & Stump CEO James W. Saxton said in the release. “It is an important step in our strategic plans for our firm to bring our full platform to South Carolina. We are honored to build on Steve Spitz and Ryan Neville’s excellent foundation through the addition of Beth Palmer and we look forward to the opportunities we can create for

Saxton & Stump’s merger with Charleston-based Spitz & Neville has resulted in the firm now doing business under the Saxton & Stump name. DepositPhotos

clients together.” The merger agreement was born out of matching core values between the firms and similar approaches to providing five-star client service for every client, the release stated. Now the merged firm can provide services to clients, which includes mergers and acquisitions, employee benefits and executive compensation, information privacy and cybersecurity, intellectual property, internal investigations, attorney and judicial ethics and discipline, white collar defense, federal tax law and every legal service Saxton & Stump offers. In addition to the legal services, the former firm’s clients have had access to comprehensive professional services through Saxton & Stump’s affiliate companies that will continue after the merger, the release stated. The services include Granite GRC Consulting, which provides healthcare-focused consulting on corporate

governance, risk management and information security; Granite HR Consulting, a human resources center; Granite Creative Group, a full-service marketing agency; and Optimal Dispute Resolutions, a company that offers private alternatives to litigation including mediations and arbitrations. The firm already has a number of clients in South Carolina and has been growing their local and statewide presence, according to the release. Saxton & Stump serves national clients who operate in the region and across North America. Recently, the firm has added new services and established groups dedicated to white collar defense and environmental, workplace safety and utilities. In addition to bolstering their infrastructure, they have also grown key existing practice areas such as healthcare, senior care, real estate, government affairs and trusts and estates.

Former Nexsen Pruet partner named DEW chief of staff ■ BY MELINDA WALDROP mwaldrop@scbiznews.com A former partner at Nexsen Pruet is the new chief of staff at the S.C. Department of Employment and Workforce. William H. Floyd III, a certified labor and employment law specialist, was a partner in Nexsen Pruet’s Labor and Employment Practice group. The former chair of the South Carolina Labor and Employment Section of the South Carolina Bar has more than 35

years of experience in handling labor and employment matters. “I am excited to begin full-time public service with the S.C. Department of Employment and Workforce, particularly in a time of great innovation and progress,” Floyd said in a news release. “DEW is an essential, resilient agency as ably demonstrated throughout the pandemic, and I am honored to join its team of professionals devoted to serving our state.” Floyd currently serves on the board of directors for the SC Technical Col-

lege System and the Society for Human Resources Management, Columbia Chapter. He is also a colonel in the South Carolina State Guard. “It is terrific news to have William on board knowing the caliber of his work and of his character,” Dan Ellzey, DEW executive director, said. “His professionalism is unmatched and his illustrious career in labor and employment will undeniably benefit the agency and assist us in continuously improving the programs and services that we offer South Carolinians.”

LAWYER TO LAWYER / Directory

MEDIATIONS: TOM MILLIGAN

• OVER 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE • TRIAL LAWYER WHO HAS TRIED OVER 200 JURY TRIALS • CERTIFIED ARBITRATOR SINCE 1999 • CERTIFIED MEDIATOR SINCE 2001

PROFESSIONAL

CONVENIENT

OBJECTIVE

MILLIGAN & HERNS, PC

721 Long Point Road, Suite 401 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 843-971-6750 ❘ tom@milliganlawfirm.com

EnVertitas Group: creative licensing solutions for brands that earn accolades they deserve.

You’ve Earned it...

now Promote it!

A

SCLAWYERSWEEKLY.COM VOLUME 19 NUMBER 31 ■

Part of the

network

JUNE 8, 2020 ■

In a first, COVID-19 concerns lead to compassionate release for inmate ■ BY CORREY E. STEPHENSON BridgeTower Media Newswires A U.S. district judge in South Carolina has granted a federal inmate’s motion for a reduced sentence in light of the presence of COVID-19 at his North Carolina prison facility. The order is reportedly the first in the state, but it may not be the last, with other inmates following suit and complaints having been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prisoners in both South Carolina and North Carolina. Joseph Leslie Griggs pleaded guilty in 2018 to illegal possession of firearms. In August 2019, he was sentenced to 25 months of incarceration and three years of supervised release, but in May he moved to have his sentence reduced pursuant to the federal compassionate release statute. Congress recently amended the statute as part of the First Step Act, to allow inmates to petition the federal courts for compassionate release once their administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons have been exhausted. Griggs argued that his release was required due to his medical conditions—particularly chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD)— and the spread of COVID-19 at the federal prison in Butner, North Carolina, where he was incarcerated. The federal government countered that Griggs had failed to make a sufficient showing of extraordinary and compelling reasons under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ Policy Statement. But U.S. District Judge Donald C. Coggins Jr. ruled that the policy statement is limited in application to motions for reduction filed by the director of the BOP and hasn’t been updated since the First Step Act was passed. Coggins relied on the discretion vested in district courts to apply the factors spelled out in federal law in granting Griggs’s motion. “The Court finds that there are viable sentencing alternatives to Defendant finishing his custodial sentence at FCI Butner Low,” Coggins wrote. “The Court is reluctant to modify Defendant’s sentence, as he has already been spared years of time in federal prison due to his medical conditions. His criminal conduct was egregious and showed a blatant disrespect of the law; however, this Court cannot sit idly by and watch while COVID-19 destroys elderly and seriously infirm inmates in BOP custody.”

A ‘perfect storm of preexisting conditions’

While the policy statement provides “helpful guidance,” it doesn’t constrain a district court’s independent assessment of whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentencing reduction, Coggins said. Griggs argued that his extensive medical conditions established extraordinary and compelling reasons

for a sentence reduction. The court acknowledged that Griggs, 54, was classified as borderline clinically obese and suffered from a host of conditions including spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease, a narrow spinal canal, conjoined nerves at the lumbar of his back, sciatica nerve pain, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, COPD, diabetes, anxiety and depression. His medical conditions resulted in his placement at FCI Butner Low, where 76 active cases of COVID-19 had been confirmed among inmates as of May 21. “The Court further acknowledges that Defendant has the proverbial perfect storm of preexisting conditions that would make him vulnerable to severe complications if infected with COVID-19,” Coggins wrote. “The Court is particularly concerned with Defendant’s COPD.” District courts in other states have granted compassionate release motions under similar circumstances, Coggins noted, including Connecticut, New York, and Washington. “The common thread among these district court orders is that a sentence reduction is justified only when a defendant is of relatively advanced age and suffers from serious preexisting conditions,” the ruling reads. “The Court emphasizes that it will scrupulously examine future requests for compassionate release and will only grant such requests in extraordinary and compelling cases.” Coggins emphasized that potential exposure to COVID-19 alone is not a basis for a reduced sentence, nor does the existence of one or more preexisting conditions guarantee release. Instead, the court must analyze each defendant on a case-by-case basis.

COVID-19 cases continue to climb

Applying the statutory factors, Coggins concluded that Griggs’ request was a “very close question in light of the severity and scope” of his criminal conduct. Griggs was “brazen” about his criminal conduct, Coggins wrote, leaving numerous stolen goods in plain view at his house and purchasing a firearm from a law enforcement officer with full knowledge that he was prohibited from owning a firearm due to a 10-year sentence in 1992 for property crimes. While the nature and circumstances of Griggs’s offense and history, as well as the seriousness of the offense, weighed in favor of serving his full term of imprisonment, Coggins expressed concern about the severity of the COVID-19 problem at Butner. “The number of positive cases among inmates and staff continues to climb at all of the BOP facilities at Butner,” he wrote. “This directly endangers Defendant’s health; however, it also stifles the opportunity for Defendant to receive prompt and

adequate treatment for his medical conditions.” Although Coggins found that the factors tipped in favor of reducing Griggs’s sentence to time served, he imposed several conditions, modifying the three years of supervised release to home incarceration for the first 18 months (with GPS location monitoring), a 14-day self-quarantine after release, and a ban on leaving his home other than for scheduled doctors’ appointments (including for work, church, or social events). Coggins also sent a message to the BOP, reminding the agency that it is in the best position to evaluate inmates’ health conditions, risk of infection and complications, dangerousness as well as the need for avoiding sentencing disparities. “It is critical that district courts give full consideration to all motions for compassionate release and be mindful of the lack of resources available to many federal inmates,” the ruling reads. “Law must be applied uniformly, and the BOP must be mindful of its obligation to apply the criteria in the Policy Statement fairly to all inmates, not just those high-profile inmates who can afford a bullpen of legal and medical experts.”

More cases to come?

Paul V. Cannarella of Hartsville and Rose Mary Parham of Florence represented Griggs. Michael R. Ray of from Hartsville, a non-attorney who assisted with Griggs’ defense, said that this was the first case in the District of South Carolina where an inmate received compassionate release solely based on COVID-19 as a reason

Reprinted with permission of South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

for release under the First Step Act, and Coggins granted the motion despite serious misgivings. “Griggs is certainly not his favorite defendant,” Ray said. “Judge Coggins didn’t think he deserved to be out, didn’t want him out and didn’t think he served long enough, but he couldn’t turn a blind eye to the dangers facing [Griggs] if he stayed in prison.” A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the order. The order could be the first of many in the state, with a lawsuit recently filed by the ACLU on behalf of incarcerated individuals at risk of serious harm or death from COVID-19 due to underlying medical conditions. In addition, the suit seeks policy and procedural changes at Spartanburg County Detention Center such as allowing free, unlimited access to soap, disinfecting cleaners, and personal protective equipment, as well as requiring social distancing of six feet, with enforcement. The issue has also reached the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Albert Parish, who pleaded guilty to charges of fraud and began serving a 24-year prison sentence in 2008. Mount Pleasant attorney Cameron Jane Blazer is handling Parish’s appeal and will point to the Griggs decision for support. “The BOP has demonstrated at [multiple facilities] that they do not possess the ability to protect the people who are there from this or other kinds of health issues arising out of institutionalized settings,” Blazer said. The Associated Press

© 2020

2020 Evan Meyer Slavitt

Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary • AVX Corporation Greenville

E

van Meyer Slavitt believes lawyers must lead with an eye toward the values of the profession and the next generation of lawyers that will follow them. “Being a leader is more than just an operational job. It requires a strong ethical and teaching component,” he says. Slavitt grew up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts and enjoyed participating in the Harwich Junior Theatre, an organization that relied on participating children to act, build the sets, run lighting and sound, work on costumes, and perform other chores. In that environment, the adults expected the kids to be responsible and professional.

“I think this approach was essential to my later academic and professional success,” he says. “Further, I got a chance to fly on stage as John in Peter Pan and to play Templeton the Rat in Charlotte’s Web,” he says. Slavitt earned Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in economics from Yale University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is senior vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary at AVX Corporation, a global manufacturing facility in Greenville. He is also a commercial, environmental, and appellate panel member for the American Arbitration Association. He points to Bob Sylvia as his most important mentor who taught him lessons about how to be an effective trial lawyer. “Bob was a partner in a law firm I joined when I went into private practice,” Slavitt says. “In addition to his technical coaching, he helped me understand how to find joy in the grind of litigation and how to manage the stress of private practice.” If Slavitt had not become a lawyer, he likely would have pursued a career in economics because “economics is both intellectually challenging and has real-world implications,” he says.

His first job at a bakery, which required him to go to work at 4 a.m. every day, taught him to find joy in his work. “The lead baker was always there when I arrived, and had been for some time,” Slavitt says. “He never complained because he loved what he did and showed me the important of finding work that you love, because that diminishes all the ancillary problems.” While Slavitt cites managing work/ life balance as one of his biggest career challenges, he draws from advice his Latin teacher gave him to put things in perspective. “He said ‘don’t sweat the small stuff,’” he recalls. “Just because something is immediate, doesn’t mean it is important. When there were chores to do at home, they sometimes didn’t get done because taking my kids to the park was more important.” When Slavitt takes a vacation, he enjoys visiting islands in the Caribbean where his cell phone doesn’t work, and where he can simply sit on the beach with a fruity beverage. Some people may not know that Slavitt likes to relax by doing needlepoint, and he has published a novel titled Death of a Prosecutor.

Reprinted with permission of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Take the first step today toward building equity in your brand, promoting your excellence and offering your audience more reasons to trust you. Contact EVG, and a member of EVG’s content licensing team will be happy to answer your questions and get you started.

© 2020

enveritasgroup.com

Enveritas is the exclusive reprints and logo licensing partner for South Carolina Lawyers Weekly