Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

ATTACKING AFFIDAVITS

Maintaining the Integrity of


the Process
By Christopher M. Kelly and Laura G. Simons

The use of affidavits by counsel, ty of the justice system itself. whether they are in compliance
whether submitted by the defense to This article revisits and empha- with the applicable rules and case
substantiate its contention that sum- sizes the procedural and practical law as to form. Practitioners also
mary judgment is warranted or by requirements for the admissibility of should examine opposing counsels
the plaintiff in an effort to show the sworn statements. Supporting or submissions and move to strike any
existence of a material issue for trial, opposing affidavits must be made that do not meet the clear standards
often can be an effective method of on personal knowledge, set out facts set forth for admissible affidavits
presenting information critical to that would be admissible in evi- and sworn statements.
the courts evaluation of the merits dence, and show that the affiant is
of the case. However, in many competent to testify to the matters Technical requirements for a
respects, the formalities of affidavits stated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1). A sworn statement are critical
have fallen by the wayside. Over party who submits evidence in the but often not met
time, as courts have become less pro- form of affidavits must do so in the The mere signing of a statement
cedurally formal, there has been a proper, authenticated form. Even at in the presence of a notary, or a
corresponding erosion of the stan- a preliminary stage of trial, courts notarys placement of an acknowl-
dards governing testamentary evi- should not permit admission of doc- edgment on a statement, does not
dence submitted by practitioners uments that do not strictly comply constitute a sworn statement or affi-
and considered by courts. As stan- with procedural rules. It is impera- davit. In Orsi v. Kirkwood, 999 F.2d
dards for affiant-submitted evidence tive that a partys sworn submission 86, 91 (4th Cir. 1993), the plaintiff
have eroded and fallen by the way- be sufficient in execution and sub- argued that courts should be
side, so has the integrity of the fact- stance, as well as consistent with lenient in accepting documents at
finding process. The importance of prior assertions, to ensure the the summary judgment stage, as
maintaining and enforcing the stan- integrity of the process. Accordingly, long as they are probative, or at
dards established for sworn state- practitioners should reexamine their least evidence of evidence that
ments is as important as the integri- affidavit forms and consider could later be introduced at trial.

38 South Carolina Lawyer


The court rejected this argument, ing to justify [appellants posi- satisfy in order for it to constitute
holding: We have no desire to tion] was her own rendition of an affidavit upon which courts will
make technical minefields of sum- facts contained in a notarized, rely. The proffered statement must
mary judgment proceedings, but self-described affidavit. This satisfy three essential elements: (1)
neither can we countenance laxness affidavit is neither sworn nor its a written oath embodying the facts
in the proper presentation of contents stated to be true and as sworn to by the affiant; (2) the
proof. Id. at 92. Every practitioner correct nor stated under penalty signature of the affiant; and (3) the
and court should hold to this rule to of perjury. attestation by an officer authorized
ensure the integrity of the process. to administer the oath that the affi-
In one precedential case, the Id. at 1305-06. A recent federal court davit was actually sworn by the affi-
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth ruling in Texas similarly demon- ant before the officer. 3 AM. JUR. 2D
Circuit was confronted with the strates this pitfall. Schelsteder v. Affidavits 8 (2008). Perhaps most
issue of whether a partys signed Montgomery County, Tex., 2006 WL critical to the evaluation of the suf-
statement, given in the presence of 1117883, at *3 (S.D. Tex. 2006). In ficiency of a partys submission is
a notary, constituted competent Schelsteder, the court held that state- the courts consideration of whether
summary judgment evidence. ments that merely bear the signa- the affiant provided the statement
Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 ture of a notary, as were proffered with a true understanding of the
F.2d 1300, 1305 (5th Cir. 1988). The by the plaintiffs, constitute neither significance of his submission.
acknowledgment at the end of the affidavits nor sworn statements Tishcon Corp. v. Soundview
purported affidavit considered by appropriate for the courts consider- Communications, Inc., 2005 WL
the Court read as follows: ation upon the defendants motion 6038743, at *4 (N.D. Ga. 2005);
for summary judgment. The court United States v. Bueno-Vargas, 383
BEFORE ME, the undersigned rejected the plaintiffs submissions F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2004). In
authority, on this day personally as proper evidence, holding: Tishcon, the plaintiff submitted a
appeared Mrs. Rukmini Sukarno statement in which he incorporated
Kline, known to me to be the Plaintiffs have filed a number of the phrase, hereby declares under
person whose name is sub- witness statements that penalties of perjury the following,
scribed to the foregoing Plaintiffs counsel characterize as but neglected to declare his state-
Affidavit, and acknowledged to affidavits, but they are not ment true and correct. Id. The
me that she executed the same sworn to nor are they state- court held that of greatest impor-
for the purposes and considera- ments made under penalty of tance in its evaluation of the state-
tion therein expressed. perjury. The mere signing of a ment is whether the person sig-
statement in the presence of a nal[s] that he understands the legal
/s/ Rukmini Sukarno Kline notary, or a notarys placement significance of his statements and
RUKMINI SUKARNO KLINE of an acknowledgment on a the potential for punishment if he
statement, does not constitute a lies. Id. If a partys submission
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND sworn statement or affidavit. demonstrates a lack of understand-
SEAL OF OFFICE this 17th day Accordingly, the [statements] do ing of the statements legal signifi-
of April, 1983. not constitute summary judg- cance, or perhaps an indifference to
ment evidence under [Rule the penalties of perjury, the submis-
/s/ Robert C. Bennett, Jr. 56(c)], and are not considered sion should be properly excluded
Notary Public in and for Harris on the pending motion. from the courts evaluation.
County, Texas The requirements for a sworn
Id. The plaintiffs failure to present statement or affidavit do not exist
Id. at 1306. In spite of opposing proper statements, made under merely to irritate practitioners with
counsels argument that the evalua- penalty of perjury, warranted the inconsequential formalities. It has
tion of its submission was hyper- courts disregard of the proposed become too commonplace for practi-
technical, the court held that this affidavits and its granting of sum- tioners to ignore the requirements
acknowledgment was insufficient to mary judgment in favor of the for a proper affidavit and for some
convert the unsworn statement into defendants. Courts throughout the courts to avoid enforcing the
a valid affidavit and was thus prop- country unanimously agree with the requirements for fear of being per-
erly disregarded as competent sum- Nissho-Iwai courts holding, that the ceived as too hyper-technical. The
mary judgment evidence. In support mere signing of a statement in the requirements for sworn statements
of its conclusion of law, for which it presence of a notary or the notarys and affidavits exist to protect the
has been positively cited 85 times placement of an acknowledgment integrity of the truth-seeking process
by courts throughout the country, on the statement does not then ren- and to guard the rights of the parties
the court held: der the document a sworn statement from abuse. Failure of practitioners
admissible as evidence. and courts to strictly enforce the
[T]he only evidence in the sum- It is important to consider the requirements undermines the legiti-
mary judgment record purport- specific elements a statement must macy of a justice system that is

40 South Carolina Lawyer


dependent on truthful testimony. city for wrongful discharge on the whereupon interviewees affidavits
basis of race and gender. Friedel v. are created, are not conducive to
Substance of a partys submis- City of Madison, 832 F.2d 965 (7th frank disclosures, such that the
sion must constitute admissible Cir. 1987). After nine months of dis- interview responses and affidavits
evidence covery, the defendants filed a that reflect interviewees answers
Affidavits submitted by a party motion for summary judgment with may be properly discredited. Natl
must be made on personal knowl- accompanying affidavits. The court Labor Relations Bd. v. Lifetime Door
edge and must set forth facts that held that the plaintiffs counsel pro- Co., 390 F.2d 272, 275-76 (4th Cir.
would be admissible in evidence. vided an object lesson in how not 1968). In addition to the danger of
Rule 56(e)(1), FRCP. Just as the to respond to a motion for summa- unreliable responses in these
requirements for the form of a state- ry judgment. Id. at 969. Plaintiffs unsworn interview settings, one
ment should not be relaxed, eviden- counsel provided their own affi- court has also discussed the dangers
tiary requirements also should be davits, to which they attached a associated with an affiants filling
strictly enforced. Failure to analyze number of unsworn interviews of in the blanks of a preprinted form.
the substance of an affidavit, in police recruits. The court rejected State v. Bowman, 1989 WL 83313, *4
light of the requirements of the these unsworn interview questions (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989). In spite of
Rules of Evidence, can undermine and responses as inadmissible evi- the fact that this case arose in the
the integrity of the process. dence, holding: criminal context, the courts reason-
Case law helps shed light on ing provides helpful insight into
courts potential treatment of The use of affidavits by counsel courts potential evaluation of the
hearsay and other evidentiary viola- is in certain carefully confined deficiencies that inevitably result
tions with regard to affidavits. A situations undoubtedly appropri- when an affiant merely circles or fills
North Carolina federal district court ate, but it is a tactic fraught with in responses to a questionnaire and
in 2008 was confronted with an affi- peril, and counsel must remem- submits it to the court to support his
davit that constituted hearsay. Gell ber that the requirements of position. The court here held:
v. Town of Aulander, 252 F.R.D. 297 Rule 56(e) are set out in manda-
(E.D.N.C. 2008). In Gell, the plain- tory terms and the failure to The danger with [questionnaires]
tiff had been acquitted of criminal comply with those requirements is that they inevitably tend to
charges and subsequently filed a makes the proposed evidence lull users into what might be
civil suit against persons involved in inadmissible during the consid- termed a check-off and fill-in-
his criminal investigation and pros- eration of the summary judg- the-blank mentality which
ecution. The defendants moved for ment motion. Supporting mate- produces a dearth of informa-
summary judgment. Id. at 299-300. rials designed to establish issues tion. If the [affiant] here had
In response, the plaintiff submitted of fact in a summary judgment been called upon to draw the
a document prepared by an investi- proceeding must be established affidavit largely from scratch, he
gator working on his behalf who through one of the vehicles might have fallen back on the
had met with a witness for the pur- designed to ensure reliability and trusty technique of setting out
pose of conducting an interview. veracityanswers to interrogato- who-what-when-where-why, and
The investigator asked questions of ries, admissions and affidavits. thus would have avoided the
the witness and created a draft affi- deficiencies in the affidavit.
davit for her based on her respons- Id. at 970 (internal quotations omit-
es to his interview questions. Id. at ted). The answers to interview ques- Id. An affidavit or sworn statement
300-301. The defendants argued, tions were based mostly on what must set forth facts that conform to
and the court agreed, that these the persons heard or felt to be the Rules of Evidence. It must be
unsworn statements in the form of the case and thus exhibited serious provided under circumstances that
responses to questions, made by a hearsay and other evidentiary prob- are conducive to eliciting frank dis-
witness and simultaneously record- lems and [ran] against the literal closures. Information regarded by
ed by the interviewer, were inadmis- requirements of [Rule 56(e)]. Id. the court as inherently unreliable or
sible hearsay. In accordance with Essentially, the Friedel court held lacking in specificity is insufficient.
this holding, a persons unsworn that unsworn interview responses Accordingly, courts and practition-
responses to interview questions simply do not qualify as vehicles ers should spend as much time dis-
that have been recorded by a third designed to ensure reliability, cussing the admissibility of the
party are inadmissible hearsay when which is required for admissibility of information contained within an
offered for their truth and thus are a partys evidence in opposition to affidavit as they do discussing the
to be excluded from the courts con- summary judgment. Other courts substance of it.
sideration upon a partys motion for holdings also support this conclu-
summary judgment. Id. sion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Sworn statements and affidavits
In another case involving simi- Appeals has recognized that inter- must be consistent with prior
lar circumstances, several discharged views conducted by an attorney who submissions and statements
police recruits filed suit against the has an interest in the litigation, Too often practitioners believe

January 2010 41
that they can correct or contradict dicts the partys own prior sworn contradict prior sworn state-
prior testimony by way of affidavit statement. All federal circuits and ments; (2) the importance to the
and therein create an issue of fact. most state jurisdictions have adopt- litigation of the fact about
This practice often takes the role of ed the sham affidavit doctrine in which there is a contradiction;
advocate a step too far and can some form. Cain v. Green Tweed & (3) whether the nonmovant had
undermine the integrity of the Co., Inc., 832 A.2d 737, 740 (Del. access to this fact prior to the
process. Where a party submits an 2003) (citing Shelcusky v. Garjulio, previous sworn testimony; (4)
affidavit to the court that contains 172 N.J. 185, 797 A.2d 138 (N.J. the frequency and degree of
information inconsistent with the 2002) (collecting cases)). variation between statements in
partys prior deposition testimony Essentially, this doctrine pro- the previous sworn testimony
or other sworn submission, courts vides that a plaintiff cannot submit and statements made in the
hold that these contradictory affi- an affidavit in which he alleges new later affidavit concerning this
davits should be disregarded as or different facts from those previ- fact; (5) whether the previous
shams or competing affidavits. ously asserted in an attempt to cre- sworn testimony indicates the
See Margo v. Weiss, 213 F.3d 55, 63 ate a material issue for trial. In dis- witness was confused at the
(2nd Cir. 2000); Rohrbough v. Wyeth tinguishing between a sham affi- time; (6) when, in relation to
Labs. Inc., 916 F.2d 970, 976 (4th davit versus one that merely cor- summary judgment, the second
Cir. 1990); Martin v. Merrell Dow rects or clarifies an issue previously affidavit is submitted.
Pharms., Inc., 851 F.2d 703, 705 (3rd addressed by the party, some courts
Cir. 1988). Courts will disregard a have developed the following con- Cothran v. Brown, 357 S.C. 210, 218,
subsequent affidavit as a sham siderations for guidance: 592 S.E.2d 629, 633 (S.C. 2004) (cit-
that is, as not creating an issue of ing Pittman v. Atl. Realty Co., 754
fact for purposes of summary judg- (1) whether an explanation is A.2d 1030, 1042 (Md. 2000)). Where
mentin the event that it contra- offered for the statements that a party submits a competing affi-

The Family Court Affidavit: Uses and Misuses certainly advisable, but one should
also look closely for things that might
By David C. Shea reveal intentional deceit. As notaries
abound in South Carolina, it is not
At the pendente lite stage of while at the same time incorporating unusual for clients to deliver affidavits
domestic proceedings, the affidavit can anything gleaned into any allowed from witnesses already notarized. And,
be a crucial instrument in the determi- oral argument. Therefore, it is possible with high stakes and emotion
nation of the outcome. If it is sufficient to miss defects, especially before involved, opposing parties and even
and properly prepared, the client courts that place no limit on the num- clients cant necessarily be trusted in
might spend the next year or two liv- ber or length of submissions, with this respect. Real-life examples of
ing with a good result in terms of visi- numerous affidavits to review. questionable jurats include affidavits
tation and support while working Practitioners should note that Rule purportedly signed by the same
toward a final hearing. If it is defective 6(d), SCRCP, still applies to other notary but with noticeably different
in substance or admissibility, the client types of motions in family court, and signatures; the back-dated affidavit in
might spend the same time complain- affidavits must be provided with the which a notary signed with a married
ing to your office and scrambling to motion. For those who practice exclu- name instead of the maiden name she
find a change in circumstance that sively domestic law, this rule is often had on the back-date of the affidavit;
might provide sufficient reason to seek overlooked by the movant as well as the notary who purportedly witnessed
a modification of a temporary order, or by the opposition, and a timely objec- multiple affidavits, but all of which
might seek new counsel altogether. tion to last-minute affidavits from the had varying commission expiration
Because Rule 21(c), SCRFC, specif- moving party can be a useful strategy dates; or simply the made-up notary.
ically makes Rule 6(d), SCRCP, inappli- under the right circumstances. Simply the proper selection of affi-
cable to temporary hearings in family Still, the affidavit is the workhorse davits can be an important strategy.
court, affidavits are not filed in of the temporary hearing. A practi- As family court judges often advise,
advance of the hearing, and often- tioners ability to adhere to the rules, affidavits from mothers and fathers of
times the lawyers receive the oppos- know what to present, and know litigants who declare their child is a
ing partys affidavits at the onset of when the opposing affidavits are good parent carry little weight, and it
the hearing and at the same time as defective can make the difference in is not necessary to include affidavits
the presiding judge. Thus, the practi- obtaining a favorable result or in that offer no substance. However,
tioner has little time to review the establishing a record for supersedeas. pointing out to the court that an in-
submissions and must try to quickly Reviewing the jurat (the certification law provided a supporting affidavit or
absorb the substance and provide the at the foot of the affidavit where the pointing out that a party who claims
client the chance to do the same, notary signs) for technical defects is to have tremendous family support

42 South Carolina Lawyer


davit that attempts to create an issue raising a more general objection to ered by the court on motion for
of fact, the court may properly disre- the admissibility of the contents of summary judgment where counsel
gard the partys subsequent conflict- the submission. Saucier v. Coldwell raises no objections. Klingman v.
ing affidavit or sworn statement. Banker JME Realty, 2007 WL Natl Indem. Co., 317 F.2d 850, 854
Practitioners should avoid losing 2475943 *3 (S.D. Miss. 2007) (citing (7th Cir. 1963) (citing Monks v.
sight of their role as officers of the Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. Hurley, 45 F. Supp. 724 (D.C.D.
court, allowing it to be subsumed by v. Interstate Commerce Commn, 360 Mass. 1942)). Accordingly, in the
their role as advocates for their F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir. 1966)); absence of a motion by counsel
clients, by submitting contradictory Larouche v. Webster, 175 F.R.D. 452, opposing admissibility of an
and competing sworn statements. 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). improper affidavit, formal defects
Case law is clear, however, that within the affidavit ordinarily are
Practitioners should attack insuf- such motions must be timely made. waived. Auto Drive-Away Co. of
ficient submissions with motions In the case of summary judgment Hialeah, 360 F.2d 446 at 449 (citing
to strike or objections motions, the motions to strike U.S. for Use and Benefit of Austin v.
Affidavits that fail to comply should be made while the motion W. Elec. Co., 337 F.2d 568 (9th Cir.
with the Rules of Procedure should for summary judgment is pending 1964)). However, when motions to
be stricken and disregarded. 35B before the court. It is settled law strike or objections are timely
C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure 1214 among federal and state courts made by counsel, nonconforming
(2008). The proper avenue by which that testimony to which no objec- affidavits or any nonconforming
counsel should seek such exclusion tion is made may be considered by portions thereof should be stricken
on pending motion for summary the trier of fact; an analogous rule from the record by courts and dis-
judgment is by motion to strike pur- applies to testimony provided regarded as evidence. Larouche, 175
suant to Rule 56(e) of the Rules of within an affidavit, whereby F.R.D. 452 at 455. As such, in
Civil Procedure or, alternatively, by improper affidavits may be consid- Continued on page 50

has only affidavits from distant, out- While some hearsay is unavoidable be made primarily from the contents
of-state relatives can be helpful in pre- in witness affidavits obtained by clients of the affidavits attached to the peti-
senting your clients case. and drafted without the assistance of tion. Rule 6(d), SCRCP.
counsel, it is still prudent for the practi- Rule 3.3(d) requires that in an ex
Hearsay can get you in trouble tioner to review all affidavits submitted parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform
Hearsay in affidavits is an ongoing to the court not only to comply with the tribunal of all material facts known
problem in the family court. In an the advisory opinion, but to ensure to the lawyer that will enable the tri-
Ethics Advisory Opinion that went that the affidavits actually advance the bunal to make an informed decision,
largely unnoticed within the family clients position and to comply with whether or not the facts are adverse.
court bar, S.C. Bar Ethics Adv. Op. #08- the general directives of diligence. It Again, in practice this does not often
14, the question posed by a family can be quite embarrassing to a practi- happen. While volunteering adverse
court practitioner was: tioner when a clients own witness affi- facts may seem unnatural to an advo-
davits conflict with one another and cate, the rules exist for a reason.
May a lawyer representing a client the lawyer did not review them ahead Disclosure of adverse facts means,
in a divorce action file affidavits in of time and realize the problem. for instance, that if your own client
support of ex parte requests or has told you that he or she has the
temporary hearings that include Ex parte means full disclosure same drug problem as the spouse, it is
hearsay or information that is not The advisory opinion also reminds a material fact and should be disclosed
based on the witnesss personal the practitioner of the duties of if that is the basis for the emergency.
knowledge? SCRPC 3.3(d). While it is well settled Or, if there is a police report (which is
that ex parte orders are condemned hearsay in itself) that relates that the
The opinion states that a lawyer by our courts, the exception is when movant was the instigator in a dispute,
may file affidavits that include hearsay they are justified by exigent circum- it should be disclosed. However, a
or information not based on a witnesss stances. Dunnavant v. Dunnavant, 278 skilled attorney can include adverse
personal knowledge in support of ex S. C. 445, 298 S. E. (2d) 442 (1982); facts and still provide support for the
parte requests or temporary hearings, McSwain v. Holmes, 269 S. C. 293, ex parte request by focusing on the
but only so long as it is clearly identi- 237 S. E. (2d) 363 (1977). In the threat, and then providing a supple-
fied as such. Further, the opinion family court, exigent circumstances mental affidavit at the hearing itself
states that if the lawyer knows an affi- most often arise when the physical that might better express points of
davit to contain hearsay that is not safety of a child or spouse is threat- advocacy within the facts.
identified as such, the lawyer has a ened. In ex parte applications for
duty to advise the court of the hearsay. emergency or expedited relief, the David C. Shea is a sole practitioner
In practice, this does not often happen. courts decision must, by necessity, in Columbia.

January 2010 43
Bar News
(continued from page 7)
Jr. to the practice of law subject to
conditions. Classifieds
Court imposed a six-month suspen- Resignations
sion on Michael E. Atwater for By order of October 9 the Court Office Space Available
failing to respond to the Office of accepted the resignation from the OFFICE SHARING ARRANGEMENT: Across
Disciplinary Counsel in the investi- Bar of Susan Barnes. n the street from Richland County Courthouse.
gation of five matters. Conference room, extensive library, Westlaw
available, two furnished offices, breakroom, sec-
By order of October 26 the Attacking Affidavits retary/paralegal. Free parking. Send inquiries to
Court imposed a definite suspension (continued from page 47) sgwin@complexlaw.net.
of nine months on William H.
Jordan of Charleston for miscon- accordance with case law, it is A BIG BEAUTIFUL, FURNISHED LAW
OFFICE IN COLUMBIA; available now. Ideal
duct involving a criminal act. imperative that practitioners take for one or two new attorneys, with room to
By order of November 4 the an aggressive approach in consid- expand. Reception, conference, attorney offices,
Court imposed a 90-day suspension ering the admissibility of oppo- computers, Internet, copier, phone. Even some
supplies. Phone answering available. Four park-
on George A. Harper, retroactive nents submissions and that they ing spaces.1.5 blocks from Richland County
to March 31, based upon his guilty raise their objections while the Courthouse. Flexible leasethree months to one
yearyour choice. Great price. Please call Adele
plea to willful failure to file a state motion is pending. Otherwise, Pope at (803) 779-1870.
income tax return and failure to such right may be forfeited.
pay taxes.
Position Available
By order of November 9 the Conclusion
Court disbarred Oliver W. Given the frequency of parties VETERANS AFFAIRS, COLUMBIA REGION-
Johnson III for misconduct which submissions of affidavits and the AL OFFICE, WILL RECEIVE APPLICATIONS
for the full-time position Rating Veterans Service
involved a pattern of financial mis- seemly increasing informality in Representative (RVSR). As a RVSR, you will serve
conduct, neglect, guilty pleas to tax many courts, it is perhaps not sur- as a specialist and decision maker for disability
claims, evaluate medical evidence to determine
evasion and assault and battery, and prising that practitioners adher- level of disability, and establish entitlement to ben-
failing to pay a court reporter and ence to procedural requirements in efits. J.D. degree. Start salary $46K. E-mail resume
expert witness. the crafting and submission of affi- to resume.vbacms@va.gov.
By order of November 9 the davits has waned. Certain affi-
Court indefinitely suspended davits and sworn statements, Practice for Sale
Kenneth L. Mitchum for miscon- which lack procedural formalities
SOLO LAW PRACTICE FOR SALE IN SPAR-
duct which included failure to keep a or assurances that the affiant TANBURG COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,
client reasonably informed, failure to understood the significance of his serving clients with real estate, probate, personal
diligently pursue a case and attempt- submission or the penalties for injury and business needs. The firm has a large,
well-established client base which is increasing at
ing to provide financial assistance to perjury, should be attacked by the rate of more than 150 new clients per year.
a client in connection with pending opposing counsel in their role as Substantial equipment, furnishings and supplies
to be sold with the practice. Please direct inquiries
or contemplated litigation. client advocates and as officers of to P.O. Box 578, Landrum, SC 29356.
By order of November 9 the the court. Insufficient statements
Court imposed a public reprimand should be excluded by courts. In
on former Probate Court Judge addition, even if technically
Property for Sale or Rent
Rebecca A. Allen (not a Bar mem- sound, there always should be an SALUDA, N.C.: (1) LAKE HOSEALake front
ber) for misconduct involving evaluation of the admissibility of home. Four bedrooms, three baths, big deck, two
fireplaces, many recent upgrades. A-frame
embezzlement of public funds. the affidavit. Finally, an analysis of design. Spectacular view of the lake. $297,000.
whether its contents contradict the (2) LAKE SHEILAThree bedroom, two bath
log home. Stone fireplace, large covered porch,
Reinstatements partys prior statements or submis- open deck, sunroom, private setting. $265,000.
By order of October 6 the Court sions is necessary and any such (3) 1800s FARM HOUSE with four acres of
reinstated Eric P. Kelley of statements should be disregarded. land. Pastures/fields. Private. $68,000. Contact
Arrington Properties at (800) 749-3114 or
Hermitage, TN, to Active status. Practitioners should refine their www.arringtonproperties.com
By order of October 8 the Court affidavit forms and practices to
reinstated Samantha D. Farlow ensure compliance with procedural Services Available
to practice. requirements and should be will-
By order of October 8 the Court ing to take an aggressive approach HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION EXPERT
WITNESS: 30+ years experience in community
reinstated Patrick in assessing and attacking oppos- association governance, accounting, budgeting,
Hollingsworth Moore of ing affidavits to ensure the contin- complex amenity structures and property opera-
Columbia to Active status. ued integrity of the court. tions. Contact IPM Corp., AAMC at (866) 978-
3839, ext. 6873 or sdavis@ipm-corp.com or visit
By order of October 20 the Court www.ipmhoa.com.
has reinstated Pete A. Lang of Fort Christopher M. Kelly is a share-
Mill to Inactive member status. holder and Laura G. Simons is an
The advertising deadline for
By order of November 4 the associate with Gallivan, White &
the March issue is January 29.
Court reinstated Vannie Williams Boyd, PA in Greenville.

50 South Carolina Lawyer