How being my clients’ fiduciary impacts my practice
Posted Saturday, April 16th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants
Comment one to Rule 1.15 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct make attorneys fiduciaries for their clients. For those not familiar with the
Why would you want a “bulldog” lawyer?
Posted Friday, April 15th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants
I occasionally get calls from prospective family law clients wanting to know if I’m a “bulldog” (sometimes, it’s a “pitbull”). One can never be certain
There’s good reasons clients should do things my way
Posted Thursday, April 14th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
A pretty sizable portion of my clients fight me on the process of doing the work I want done. I would not claim I have
You willing to go to jail over that?
Posted Thursday, April 14th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
It amazes me how unseriously many folks subject to South Carolina child custody orders take the requirement of those orders. Per S.C. Code Ann. §
The vital distinction between dismissal with prejudice and dismissal without prejudice
Posted Saturday, April 2nd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
In family court there is a vital distinction between dismissal with prejudice and dismissal without prejudice. “A dismissal of a case without prejudice means that
Court of Appeals affirms award of stepmother custody and grandparent visitation
Posted Thursday, March 17th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In the March 16, 2022 opinion in Jacobs v. Zarcone, 436 S.C. 170, 871 S.E.2d 211 (Ct.App. 2022), the Court of Appeals affirms an award
Enterprise versus personal goodwill explained through local barbeque joints
Posted Thursday, March 10th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
The distinction between enterprise goodwill and personal goodwill confuses a number of family law attorneys. But any Charleston area attorney who loves barbeque will probably
Posted Thursday, March 10th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The March 9, 2022, Court of Appeals opinion in Bostick v. Bostick, 436 S.C. 43, 872 S.E.2d 859 (Ct.App. 2022), reversed the family court’s determination
Court of Appeals’ Glinyanay opinion addresses numerous novel family law issues
Posted Wednesday, February 23rd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The February 23, 2022, Court of Appeals opinion in Glinyanay v. Tobias, 436 S.C. 137, 871 S.E.2d 193 (Ct.App. 2022), addresses numerous novel legal issues
Parents who allow unfit co-parents to provide unsupervised care for their child(ren) are also unfit
Posted Monday, February 14th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
But for the human capacity for self delusions, I would find the ability of parents to claim their co-parent was unfit while they allowed that
