South Carolina Bar's E-Blast
Volume 500 - December 27, 2007

Welcome to the South Carolina Bar's E-Blast!
E-Blast highlights upcoming activities, legal information and links to the Bar's Web site at www.scbar.org.

The South Carolina Bar is dedicated to advancing justice, professionalism and understanding of the law.

There is still time to meet your philanthropic goals
If you have yet to meet your annual philanthropic goals, there is still time. Support your profession by making your gift online at www.scbarfoundation.org. Just click the "Give Now" button for immediate processing. You may also download the giving forms at http://www.scbar.org/barfoundation/pdf/Giving2007.pdf. If you choose to mail in your donation, please make sure it is postmarked by December 31. Honor a colleague, remember a friend or designate your gift to one of the many funds. The Bar Foundation serves as your philanthropic arm. Each gift adds to the next, making the Foundation’s work possible.

Ethics Advisory Opinions published
Summaries of recently-published ethics opinions are listed below. The complete text of all opinions since 1958 can be obtained online at www.scbar.org/member/ethics.asp.

 

EAO 07-08: Lawyer may participate in Company’s advertisement as long as Lawyer pays the reasonable costs of the advertisement and ensures that the advertisement complies with the S.C. Rules of Professional Conduct’s provisions on lawyer advertising and communications. To read the full text, visit http://www.scbar.org/member/opinion.asp?opinionID=652.

 

EAO 07-09: Personal delivery of discount coupons violates the Rule 7.3(a) prohibition against in-person solicitation. Although the agent or loan originator, not the lawyer, has in-person contact with the prospective client under these facts, a lawyer cannot do indirectly what she is prohibited from doing directly. Also, the coupons likely violate the written solicitation requirements of Rule 7.3(d). To read the full text, visit http://www.scbar.org/member/opinion.asp?opinionID=653.

EAO 07-10: Subject to future clarification from the Supreme Court, the Committee believes the term “bank” in Rule 1.15(f) should be read to include credit unions and other financial institutions as defined in IOLTA Rule 412(a)(4). The “Scope” of the Rules of Professional Conduct state: “The Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason. They should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself.”? To read the full text, visit http://www.scbar.org/member/opinion.asp?opinionID=654.

Casemaker makes the case!
Did you know that Casemaker utilizes SuperCODE to identify changes to statutes and codes? In Casemaker, when you view a South Carolina Code section, you will see “SuperCODE” on the right-hand side of the screen. If any current legislation is pending that would affect that section, SuperCODE will display hyperlinks. Just click on the link to be transported to the proposed or current legislation for that Code section. Users can then make their own determination as to whether the new law will affect the Code section being researched. For Casemaker assistance, e-mail casemaker@scbar.org.

ABA Legal Opportunity Scholarships available
Applications are available for the ABA Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund for the 2008-09 academic year. The Scholarship Fund is intended to encourage racial and ethnic minority students to apply to law school and provide financial assistance to the scholarship recipients. The Fund will award $5,000 annually to each recipient attending an ABA-accredited law school. Application may be downloaded from www.abanet.org/fje and must be postmarked no later than March 1.

DRI to host appellate advocacy seminar
The Defense Research Institute will sponsor its seventh annual Appellate Advocacy Seminar in Orlando February 28-29. This seminar will cover topics that will enhance your knowledge of appellate law and practice and provide an opportunity to meet appellate judges, attorneys and professors from across the country. A complete brochure, registration information and seminar schedule can be found at http://www.dri.org/DRI/open/CLE.aspx?sem=20080010.

Bar closing
Offices at the Bar building will be closed Tuesday, January 1. E-Blast will resume Thursday, January 3.

Advance Sheet update
December 20, 2007:
The Supreme Court affirmed in this appeal from a capital death sentencing proceeding. Although Stone objected to testimony from the victim’s widow regarding her suicide attempt at trial on relevance and causation grounds, he argued on appeal that the testimony impermissibly injected an arbitrary factor into the jury’s deliberations. Because Stone did not argue these grounds in support of his objection at trial, the argument is not preserved for review; the Court rejected Stone’s argument that his appeal was simply an augmentation of his objection at trial. 
State v. Stone, No. 26408, is available online.

 

The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part in this workers’ compensation case.  The Court rejected the employer’s contention that federal law prevents state workers’ compensation benefits to be paid to illegal aliens and affirmed the award of benefits. However, the circuit court erred in reversing the commissioner’s findings regarding Curiel’s maximum medical improvement and temporary total benefits; factual determinations by the commission must be upheld on review unless unsupported by substantial evidence, and the commissioner’s findings were supported by the record. The Court affirmed the circuit court’s order to reverse and remand as to the issue of Curiel’s pre-existing impairment in his left eye for consideration in combination with the injury to his right eye in determining his impairment rating. The Court also rejected the Fund’s argument that it was not liable for the claim because Curiel is not a legal South Carolina resident; no allegations were made that the employer, who is the insured party, is not a South Carolina resident.
Curiel v. Envtl. Mgmt. Servs., No. 26409, is available online.  

 

The Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in this civil case.  The defendant doctors’ office is located in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the plaintiffs, Richland County residents, sought treatment. The defendants were not subject to general jurisdiction pursuant to § 36-2-802 because medical care is of such a personal nature jurisdiction over an out-of-state physician is generally not exercised absent other circumstances indicating a purposeful availment of the forum.  Nor did the defendants transact business, cause the injury, or enter into a contract in this state as required by § 36-2-803 to establish personal jurisdiction based on an enduring relationship.
Coggeshall v. Reprod. Endocrine Assocs., No. 26410, is available online.
Chief Justice Toal concurred in the result in a separate opinion in which Justice Beatty concurred.

 

The Court of Appeals affirmed the award of workers’ compensation benefits in this case arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred while the claimant was traveling on a business trip.  Hall’s injuries occurred after dinner with a business associate, during which they consumed alcohol and after which the associate drove the motor vehicle and caused the accident. The commissioner’s finding that the accident was “arising out of and in the course of employment,” as required for compensability under § 42-1-160, was supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed. 
Hall v. Desert Aire, No. 4324, is available online.

 

The court reversed the award of pre-judgment interest to Dixie Belle. The trial court erred in awarding Dixie Belle pre-judgment interest on the $100,000 jury verdict because Dixie Belle did not request pre-judgment interest in its pleadings. Dixie Belle also did not establish its claim was liquidated or a sum certain pursuant to § 34-21-20(A), under which ascertained sums of money due can draw interest according to law. 
Dixie Belle, Inc., v. Redd, No. 4325, is available online.

 

The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in this civil action arising from an automobile accident. The trial court properly directed a verdict in plaintiff Howard’s favor on liability against either or both defendants despite the motion being made against Roberson alone. However, the trial court erred in granting a new trial solely on the issue of damages pursuant to the thirteenth juror doctrine; while the doctrine can be used to grant a new trial absolute, the doctrine is not to be used for a new trial nisi additur when the trial judge has found the verdict inadequate or unduly liberal. Due to other procedural issues arising out of this error, the case was remanded for a ruling on Howard’s motion for a new trial nisi additur on other grounds than the thirteenth juror doctrine.   
Howard v. Roberson, No. 4326, is available online.

 

The court affirmed the circuit court’s finding of probable cause for a traffic stop and subsequent search. The police had probable cause to seize Odom during a traffic stop because the officers clearly saw Odom committing a seatbelt violation under §56-6-6540. The subsequent search was legal because, despite the statute’s prohibition against searching a vehicle solely for a seatbelt violation, the officers smelled marijuana and observed an empty gun holster in the passenger compartment, giving them probable cause independent of the seatbelt violation for a pat down and search. The pat down that yielded the marijuana was not illegal because, despite the constitutional “plain feel” doctrine, the experienced officer immediately recognized the feel of a pouch of marijuana as an illegal, rather than ambiguous, item. 
State v. Odom, No. 4327, is available online. 

Discipline
By order of December 19 the Court placed John L. Drennan on interim suspension. Joseph S. Schmutz is the trustee.
 
Firm announcements
Bradford & Bradford, PA announces that Jacqueline N. Davis has become an associate of the firm located at 4 E. Liberty St., York 29745. (803) 684-4888.

Mary Alice H. Godfrey and E.P. “Bill” Godfrey announce that Elizabeth Ann Dyal has become an associate of Godfrey Law Firm, LLC located at 10 E. Ave., Greenville 29601. (864) 467-9196.
 
Grant Thornton, LLP announces that Hoyt S. Neal has become a senior tax associate in its Phoenix office located at the Biltmore Financial Center, 2398 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 600, Phoenix, AZ 85016. (602) 474-3400.

Bryan S. Jeffries announces the opening of the Jeffries Law Firm, LLC located at 1922 Russell St., Orangeburg 29115. (803) 534-4777.

McWhirter, Bellinger & Associates, PA announces that Joseph Robert Dasta has become a shareholder of the firm located at 1807 Hampton St., Columbia 29201. (803) 252-2252.

Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC announces that David Hendricks and Katie McElveen have become associates of the firm located at 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A, Mt. Pleasant 29464. (843) 727-6500.

Wilkes Bowers, PA announces that Melissa M. Nichols and Melinda K. Powers have become associates in the Spartanburg office located at 127 Dunbar St., Ste. 200, 29306. (864) 591-2363. The firm also announces that David D. Ashley has become an associate in the Charleston office located at 171 Church St., Ste. 210, 29401. (843) 577-9888.

David M. Yokel announces the opening of the David M. Yokel, LLC Law Firm located at 1 Whitsett St., Greenville 29601. (864) 240-2066.

Calendar
January 4
Elder Law Committee Meeting, Conference Call
South Carolina Lawyer Editorial Board Meeting, Bar Building

January 8
Health Care Law Section Council Meeting, Conference Call

January 11
Children’s Law Committee Meeting, Suggs & Kelly Law Center, Columbia