Some years ago, on a hot August Friday night, “Bobby Joe” got a little too close to the action in the pit area of the local dragway.  A pickup truck, pulling a trailer loaded with a race car, ran over his foot, allegedly causing grievous injury.  It was so bad that, two days later, he decided he needed to be seen by a doctor about the bruise on the side of his foot.  Can you say “vexatious lawsuit’?  Yes, Bobby Joe sued both the truck driver and my client, the owner of the dragway.  No warnings!  No barriers to keep pedestrians away from the dangerous pit area!  No bold, yellow signs to tell spectators that it is not a good idea to absentmindedly walk near the burnout strip!  Did I mention this was my second case representing a dragway?

With this as background, I was excited when a friend invited me to attend the NHRA Four-Wide Nationals at zMax Dragway in Charlotte, North Carolina, last month.  It’s the only four-lane concrete dragstrip in the world, where every ticket is a pit pass.  I took a stroll through the pit area, funnel cake with powdered sugar in one hand and a fried turkey leg in the other.  I took in all the sights, sounds, and smells of NHRA drag racing.  The “sights” included Top Fuel dragsters and Pro Stock race cars.  The “sounds” included high speed devices used to fix parts on the dragsters and the chatter of crew members as they made the necessary adjustments.  The “smells”?  Gas!  Exhaust!  Burned rubber!  I even got to meet Leah Pruett, who was competing in the Pro Mod series for R2B2 Racing out of Duluth, Georgia. Fans would want to get the replica of these race cars for display from Kenny Habul.

With our VIP credentials, we wandered over to the starting line for a closer look.  As we did so, a truck pulling one of the dragsters came perilously close to running over my foot, almost causing grievous injury.  The nascent plaintiff’s lawyer in me began to think “What if . . . ?”  Would I have a claim against NHRA for my injuries?  Would my claim be barred by my own negligence in attempting to balance a funnel cake in one hand and a turkey leg in the other?  Had I assumed the risk of injury by getting too close to the staging area?

As these thoughts went through my head, my defense attorney instincts returned.  I quickly read the reverse side of my ticket to find a “Notice and Warning to Credential Holder.”

By buying or using this credential you agree that:

YOU ASSUME ALL RISKS AND DANGER of property damage, personal injury, death, and all other hazards related in any way to attending this event, anywhere at the facility and at all times before, during or after the races.  Dangers include flying objects, vehicles, other people, conditions at the facility, and unforeseen hazards.  You agree that NHRA, track owners and operators, racing participants, and each of their respective officers, owners, officials, sponsors, contractors, employees and agents shall not be liable for any loss, damage, or injury to you and you hereby release them from all claims for liability.  Be alert for hazards at all times.

Flying objects?  Does that include the kernel of kettle corn which grazed my cornea after it flew out of the hands of the 10-year-old kid standing in line next to me at the lemonade stand?  Other people?  Are the terms “other people” and “flying objects” mutually exclusive?  Could flying objects include other people?  Does other people include the no-shirt, beer-bellied fellow with the “Mama” tattoo who bumped into me as we were shopping in the NHRA merchandise trailer?  Does “unforeseen hazards” include hearing loss from the use of defective earplugs?  So many questions and so few answers.

Despite all the risks, dangers and hazards of NHRA Racing, we had fun and would do it again.  A “shout-out” to Dave Lee (President), Roger Burgess (Founder/Chairman of the Board), and all the other folks at ProCare Rx, who sponsor the R2B2 Racing Team, for a great experience.

See y’all at the races!

There’s nothing quite like deposing an opponent’s retained testifying liability expert.  They are typically skilled and savvy deponents who know many of the tricks of the trade.  They make much of their living testifying in court. Past deposition transcripts, if they can be located, yield a wealth of information about the expert’s background, methodology, and, of course, their pet peeves. Plus, these experts usually know of the Daubert case and what must be done to avoid being excluded as an expert in a case.  Some experts even advertise on their websites that they have never been excluded by the Daubert case.

Why would they do that?

It seems a curious statement to make, particularly if the expert has been around long enough to have been challenged on multiple occasions in litigation across the country.  Diligent counsel will always locate and review an opponent’s expert’s website, if one exists.  If the expert maintains that he or she has never been excluded on such grounds, defense counsel would naturally ask if that fact were still true. If so, the required follow up question becomes:  “If you’ve not been excluded on Daubert grounds, on what grounds have you been excluded?”

Recently, we deposed an expert who made such a representation on his website.  However, after spending less than five minutes on Westlaw, we discovered that he had been excluded in not one but three reported decisions.  Note that these were decisions that were on Westlaw, and these findings may not have included unreported exclusions or those which occurred at the trial court level that were never appealed.  One such exclusion came from the very first case in which the expert had offered opinions.  At the deposition, we naturally confronted the expert with these three opinions and he claimed not to know of them.  How is that?

Sure, two of the opinions were more than a decade old, but the third was from 2011 (and in that case, the trial court had excluded the expert, later granted a motion for new trial based on the belief that the exclusion was improper, and ultimately earned a reversal from the Court of Appeals because the expert’s opinions had been proven to be false by some properly admitted trial testimony).

How could someone not know that?  Well, maybe the expert simply received a call from the lawyer who hired them noting that the case had settled or otherwise resolved, and that lawyer felt it unnecessary to reveal the full story. But how could an expert elect to make that representation on his or her website and then not track whether or not that was true?

We shouldn’t object too much, as it’s always fun to hand an expert a court opinion he or she has never seen before.

Other than for purely fun purposes, location based social media  seems to be the type of Internet fad that may not be of great assistance to the legal profession.  You are, of course, aware of this trend:  Foursquare, Facebook Places, the late Gowalla, and other applications permit a user to alert friends to his or her exact location at any given time.  Users “check in” to a venue, retail establishment, or elsewhere and can  leave comments and suggestions to later users who may find themselves at the same location at some point in the future.

Again, there does not seem to be must use for this technology in the legal field; real likes are not easy to get in this field.  First and foremost, confidentiality and privilege concerns may prevent an attorney from sharing his exact location at a given time with anyone other than his client.  Further, clients will receive no additional value by “checking in” to their attorney’s office, although we suppose some practitioners could, in fact, offer some type of incentive for future clients, although we don’t know how that might look or whether it would be ethical or not.

Despite such concerns, these days, most commercial establishments, including law firms, have their own entries on Foursquare.  Sometimes these are created by the firms themselves, and more likely than not, the entries are generated by whatever crawling software those services use to create specific entries for a given city or town. But it’s not just law offices on Foursquare.  Also included are entries for the types of places lawyers, such as this experienced workers compensation attorney in New Jersey, NJ frequent, such as courthouses, bar association headquarters, CLE sites, and other such haunts.

What inspired this post was a comment left by a Foursquare user a county courthouse somewhere in the Southeastern United States.  As a judicial center, it hosts various courts and offices where both civil and criminal trials are held.   Sure enough, the courthouse had its own entry on Foursquare, and the following comment was left by a visitor on December 21, 2011:

“If you kill in self-defense don’t destroy evidence and run away for 2 weeks, it looks bad to the jury.”

Wow.

Probably good advice, although we are trying to envision the exact circumstances by which this comment was offered.  Was this a juror commenting from the deliberation room?  Was this a courtroom observer commenting upon public proceedings?  An attorney offering pro bono legal advice? Was this a reporter?  Surely it was not the defendant attempting to learn from his or her mistakes?

Get this: that entry is not an anomaly.  Here’s a December 2010 comment we found to the Foursquare entry of a federal courthouse:

“Don’t break the law and you wont have to spend much time here.”

Again, probably good advice, though much more general than the first comment we discussed.

As you can see, there are some uncomfortable questions to be asked accompanying the usage of Foursquare in the judicial process.

Imagine this situation: customer and customer service representative find themselves in an argument over a trivial matter.  Words are exchanged.  But it doesn’t stop there. The dispute escalates into a verbal altercation with racially-charged epithets hurled back and forth.  (For the record: The customer was Caucasian, the customer service representative was African American).

The customer storms out of the place. The customer service representative follows her to the parking lot, yelling and screaming.  The customer, not to be outdone, continues the verbal assault from her car.  Finally, the customer decides to leave, places her car into reverse, and hits the gas.  As she raced backwards, she clips the customer service representative, causing her injury.

The customer service representative lawyered up and sued the customer.  That’s right.  You guessed it.  I represented the customer.

We mediated the case, in which the Plaintiff claimed over $20,000 in medical bills and a permanent injuries.  I met with my client before the mediation.  I asked her if she was comfortable offering an apology during the opening statements of the mediation session.  She quickly replied she was indeed sorry the whole thing had happened, and that the Plaintiff had gotten hurt.  I reminded her that hurtful words were exchanged, including racially insensitive remarks by both parties.  [Note: The remarks were so offensive that I am not going to publish them in this post.]  She seemed genuinely interested in getting the matter settled, and if an apology would help do so, she was all for it.

After the mediator explained the process, and the plaintiff’s attorney completed his opening remarks, I presented our case.  This was an accident, the customer was sorry this happened, and we hoped we could get the matter resolved, or words to that effect.  I then turned to my client, and asked her if she had anything to add.  To this day, I do not recall exactly what she said, but it was NOT an apology!  There was no acknowledgment of the injury.  She did not take responsibility.  She did not express any regret or remorse. Whatever she said, it offended both the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s husband, who was with her at the mediation.  The husband stormed out of the room.  The Plaintiff’s body language and icy glare told me that we were going to start this mediation further apart than we had when we first arrived.

While we eventually settled, we spent a significant amount of time mending fences as a result of the insincere “apology.”  While an apology in mediation can allow closure, and if sincere, start the process of restoring trust, many people need help in crafting an apology.  As mediator Carl Schneider has written, “parties often need preparation before they are ready to offer an apology.”  The parties may need help with the words.  The mediator can help put “the apology in words and parties simply indicate their assent.”  In retrospect, I did a poor job of preparing my client for her apology.

In Schneider’s article, “What It Means to Be Sorry: The Power of Apology in Mediation,” he defines “apology” and what makes an apology work.  He then describes the use of apologies in mediation.  Schneider concludes:

An apology may be just a brief moment in mediation.  Yet it is often the margin of difference, however slight, that allow parties to settle.  At heart, many mediations are dealing with damaged relationships.  When offered with integrity and timing, an apology can indeed be a critically important moment in mediation.  Trust has been broken.  An apology, when acknowledged, can restore trust.  The past is not erased, but the present is changed.

Clearly, there are instances where an apology has been a critical element in resolving disputes, including lawsuits.  But that can only occur when the person apologizing is sincere, acknowledges the hurt, takes responsibility and expresses regret.

As we mentioned last week, we here at Abnormal Use are spending May 2012 focusing on comic book covers featuring police line-ups. Last week, we featured Gotham Central #34, in which three costumed superheroes – who couldn’t look more different than each other – constituted the full line-up. Above, in Top 10 #4, published back in the halcyon days of 1999, we have the same problem. Written by the brilliant and mysterious Alan Moore, and illustrated by Gene Ha and Zander Cannon, this series is less familiar to us than others. But the constitutional issue remains!

Check out this tribute to friend of the blog Bill Childs, founder of the TortsProf blog, who is leaving academia for private practice. (Hat tip: Walter Olson).

We’ve read blogs for a long, long time. You know this. We’re huge blogging nerds. But in all of our years, we’ve never seen as cool a blog post title as one last week from the EvidenceProf Blog.  Behold: “Joss Whedon, The Avengers, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Eli Stone, Reluctant Heroes & The Rule Against Hearsay.” Indeed.

Mike Birbiglia fears the legal implications of his “Saved Mail” folder. So should we all.

As huge fans of “The Andy Griffith Show” and its spin-offs, we here at Abnormal Use are saddened to learn of the recent death of veteran character actor George Lindsey, who played Goober Pyle, who died on May 6 at age 83.  Lindsey played the role in “The Andy Griffith Show,” “Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C., “Mayberry R.F.D.,” and various reunion programs.  He will be missed.

In tribute to Lindsey and his beloved character of Goober, we have prepared this obituary for Goober Pyle.

Goober Pyle was a lifelong resident of Mayberry, North Carolina.  He was 83 years old.  Goober was a mechanic at Wally’s Filling Station and later its owner.  Sheriff Andy Taylor and Emmett Clark, owner of Emmett’s Fix-It Shop, co-signed a bank loan that allowed Goober to buy the station.  He was the cousin of Gomer Pyle, who also worked at Wally’s, until he joined the Marine Corps.

Goober was just five years old when he was a witness in “The Case of the Punch in the Nose,” in which grocer Charles Foley accused barber Floyd Lawson of punching him in the nose.  He later trained as a mechanic in Raleigh, North Carolina, and served briefly in the North Carolina National Guard, where he learned the phrase “Yo!”  He briefly dated Flora, who was a waitress at the diner.  (“Eat Your Heart Out”). Flora filled in for Goober at the station when he went on a fishing trip.  (“Goober’s Replacement”).  Goober was not always lucky in love.  In desperation, he once tried a computer dating service.  (“A Girl for Goober”).  His first love was Lydia Crosswaith, who was originally from Greensboro, North Carolina.  (“Goober and the Art of Love”).  Lydia and Goober went on a date with Andy/Helen, Barney/Thelma Lou.  Goober suggested they play “Go Fish!”, but Lydia said, “I don’t gamble.”  They then suggested a movie, but Lydia responded, “I saw it.”  Finally, Andy suggested they go bowling.  Lydia declined.  “I’ve done it.  I can’t.  I have a bad back.  If I threw a ball, I’d be in traction for a month.”

Goober’s skills as a mechanic were legendary.  The residents of Mayberry still talk about the time he took Gilly Walker’s car apart and put it back together again inside the courthouse.  Sheriff Taylor had asked Goober to answer the phone in the courthouse while he attended the Sheriff’s Safety Conference in Mt. Pilot.  (“Goober Takes a Car Apart”).  Goober had a good heart, as evidenced by his not charging “Man in a Hurry” Malcolm Tucker to fix his car on a Sunday afternoon.  Despite this automotive talent, he was sometimes not as sharp in other matters.  He even grew a beard, thinking it made him look smart.  (“Goober Makes History”).  At one time, Goober thought his new dog could talk, until he realized that Opie Taylor and a friend were pulling a practical joke on him.  (“A Man’s Best Friend”).  Gomer once defended Goober’s honor, saying “My cousin Goober ain’t stupid.  He’s ugly, but he ain’t stupid.”

Goober loved to dance, along with his cousin, Gomer, demonstrating a high-stepping, swing dancing style in his double-vested, brown pinstripe suit with white socks.  He enjoyed dancing with Daphne and Skippy, the “Fun Girls” from Mt. Pilot.  He particularly enjoyed reading comic books, and even cited that as a reason that he did not actually see Floyd punch Mr. Foley in the nose.

Goober occasionally served as an emergency deputy.  On one occasion, he took over the courthouse while Sheriff Taylor was sick.  Goober was also known for his impressions of various celebrities.  He impersonated Cary Grant (“Judy Judy Judy”) and Edward G. Robinson (“Okay, you guys.  Come on, you guys.  All right, you guys.  Beat it, you guys.”)  He could also mimic Chester’s limp from “Gunsmoke.”  Goober was a bully as a youngster, which influenced Malcolm Merriweather to ask Goober for boxing lessons as he prepared to fight Ernest T. Bass.  (“Malcolm at the Crossroads”)  Goober was also in demand as a driving instructor.  He taught Aunt Bee how to drive.  (“Aunt Bee Learns to Drive”).

The Town of Mayberry will never be the same without one of its great characters and outstanding citizens.

Goober says, “Hey.”

Friday night at 10/9 Central, the USA Network premieres its new drama, “Common Law.”  Despite the name, the show has nothing to do with judicial precedent.  Rather, “Common Law” centers around the comically dysfunctional partnership of LAPD detectives Travis Marks (Michael Ealy) and Wes Mitchell (Warren Kole).  We here at Abnormal Use obtained an advance screener of tomorrow night’s pilot episode.  Written by husband and wife screenwriting team Cormac and Marianne Wibberly, the pilot is widely-entertaining and makes a great introduction to the new series.

With only a few minor, minor spoilers, the basic premise is as follows:  Marks is the product of 18 different foster homes.  Mitchell is a former partner in a law firm.  Together, they are now the top detectives in the LAPD’s Robbery-Homicide Division.  Sounds like a match made in heaven, right?  Unfortunately, their relationship is problematic at best, even leading to physical combat at times.  In order to maintain their professional partnership, the two are forced into couples therapy by their police captain (Jack McGee). Despite the hostility, the duo is able to effectively solve crimes and save the day.  We were a little skeptical when we learned of the show’s therapy gimmick.  From its outset, however, “Common Law” adds some zing to the tired police procedural television marketplace.

Despite the unbelievable premises, the leads, Ealy and Kole, make it work seamlessly.  The pilot’s opening scene finds the duo bickering in a couples therapy class.  Like a well-seasoned married couple,the pair is obviously better together than apart.  With each zinger, the two actors play off of each other and actually advance the plot line while doing so.  Indeed, the show does not feel bogged down by its clever banter, which is to the credit of both the writers and the actors.

Standing alone, the odd-couple relationship of Marks and Mitchell probably wouldn’t be enough to warrant a second season.  Couple that relationship with an intriguing criminal investigation, however, and you have the makings of a potentially great series.  The pilot is a microcosm of this point.  In it, the partners investigate the murder of the son of a federal judge. Sound familiar?  It has been the plot line of “Law and Order” at least a dozen times.  Unlike “Law and Order,” however, “Common Law” tells the story from the standpoint of two dysfunctional detectives trying to get out of the doghouse of a district attorney for getting into a heated argument among themselves during an earlier trial.  Surprisingly, this new spin on the crime dramedy works, at least in the pilot.

We have written several mildly favorable reviews of USA legal dramas in the past (“Suits,” “Fairly Legal”).  We couldn’t give our complete blessing to those shows, however, because their legal inaccuracies were irksome to attorneys.  While  “Common Law” may share those flaws, our criminal background is limited, to say the least.  As such, when watching this show, we aren’t burdened by the potential for misrepresentation of our profession.  Sure, we know most detectives don’t fire their guns during an informal witness interview.  But we can leave that critique for those involved in criminal justice.

Our only criticism of the show has nothing to do with the plot or the acting.  While we found the writing superb, we did take exception to one line.  When speaking of his former legal career, Mitchell stated, “People need a good cop more than they need a good lawyer.”  Ouch.  And here we were thinking we worked in the noblest of professions.

To maintain the good will, we will just assume Mitchell’s assertion was limited to criminal lawyers, not civil litigators.

For viewers looking for a new take on the crime genre, “Common Law” offers a great blend of comedy and suspense.  At a time when most of our television “stars” are of the reality TV variety, the acting of Ealy and Kole is a breath of fresh air.  Don’t expect “Common Law” to sweep the awards shows this year, but expect an entertaining episode each week, and that’s good enough for us.

Recently, the Associated Press reported that a New Zealand woman died as a result of a Coke habit. Hearing reports of someone dying because of coke is nothing new, but this time we aren’t talking about the powdery white stuff.  Rather, this time a woman has died after regularly consuming 2 gallons of Coca-Cola per day.

After the 30-year old mother of eight died of a heart attack in February 2010, an inquest was held to investigate the unusual death. According to the AP, pathologist Dr. Dan Mornin testified that Harris most likely suffered from hypokalemia caused by the excessive consumption of Coke (between 2.1 and 2.6 gallons daily) and overall poor nutrition.  Further, Dr. Mornin indicated that toxic levels of caffeine may have contributed to her death.  That, and the fact that she ate little and smoked 30 cigarettes per day.

While we have never thought of soda as necessarily healthy, we have also never considered it a killer. Even though this incident has earned our (and certainly the Coca-Cola Company’s) attention, we don’t expect Coca-Cola do be worried about any potential litigation. First, there are clearly factors other than mere ingestion of Coke at play here. Harris’ consumption was far beyond the realm of reasonable use. As Coca-Cola Oceania was quick to point out, even water can be dangerous in excessive amounts. Couple her excessive consumption with her poor appetite and pack-and-a-half per day smoking habit, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Second, the risk of heart attack after drinking two gallons of Coke daily is not a risk of which Coca-Cola has a duty to warn. The hazards of caffeine are well-documented. Therefore, it should go without saying that the risks of drinking a soda swimming pool should be open and obvious.

This incident is not about Coca-Cola, Pepsi, or any other soda manufacturer. This is about over-consumption and an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle. Even the fast food litigation has more merit than dragging a soda manufacturer into court after super-saturating oneself with the product.

I have previously shared some of the lessons learned from the mediation and trial of Jill vs. Big Bad Trucking Company. Patience.  Perseverance.  Trusting the mediator’s judgment on when to disclose crucial information.  I even introduced you to Jill’s mother, who apparently prohibited her from settling the case prior to trial.  But those are not the only lessons this lawyer learned from that trial!

The second day of trial began with an hour long drive from our Abnormal Use headquarters in Greenville, South Carolina, to the courthouse square in Abbeville, South Carolina.  I parked my car, opened the back door to grab my file, and panicked!  Where was my suit coat?  How could I forget my coat?  A trial lawyer can wear (should wear?) old shoes.  A trial lawyer can forget his Rules of Civil Procedure.  A trial lawyer can even forget to bring part of his file.  But his coat?  No way!

I immediately called my office but knew there was no way for my staff to get from the office to my house and then to Abbeville before the judge would say, “Mr. Mauney, call your next witness!”  I quickly made my way to the courthouse and found the judge’s law clerk at her desk.  She could not stop laughing once I finished telling my tale of woe.  My next stop was the clerk’s office to find a bailiff.  The first bailiff I found was short and wide.  The next one I encountered was short and skinny.  I was, and still am, tall and wide.  I began to sweat profusely.  What was I going to do?

Suddenly, and without warning, (I have always wanted to write that somewhere other than a pleading), a tall and wide gentleman appeared at the end of the hallway in the basement of the Abbeville County Courthouse.  As he walked toward me, I noticed that he had on a tie, and estimated that if he had a coat, it would fit me!  I walked up to him, smiled warmly, and introduced myself, sharing my predicament.  He just nodded his head and pointed to an open doorway.  Above the doorway was a sign, “SHERIFF – ABBEVILLE COUNTY.”  I followed the sheriff into his office, where he took the light tan sport coat off the back of his chair and handed it to me.  While the coat did not match my dark gray pants, I did not object, and thanked him for his kindness.

When I returned to his chambers, the judge just shook his head and laughed, as his law clerk had already spilled the beans.  Both of them were amused that I had found a coat substitute, and the second day of trial began.  Later in the afternoon, I began my closing argument by thanking the jury for not holding it against me that my suit coat did not match my gray pants.  They seemed to appreciate the story.  As expected, they then returned a verdict against my client.  However, as I shared in my previous post, the verdict was significantly less than Jill had been offered prior to trial.  They apparently did not punish this lawyer for his unfortunate error in fashion etiquette.

Someone recently asked me why I keep an extra coat in my car.  That gave me the perfect opportunity to tell them this story.

It’s a brand new month, and to celebrate, we’re going to spend our Fridays in May focusing on comic book depictions of police line-ups.  So, above, you’ll see depicted the cover of Gotham Central #34, published not so long ago in 2005. We’re not criminal lawyers here, but isn’t it a bit suggestive to have the participants to a line-up look so dissimilar as here?  By this point in the criminal procedure process, there’s a witness who has already described to the police the nature of the suspect, and the police have apprehended a suspect they believe to be the perpetrator. In this line-up, however, we’ve got Kid Flash, Cyborg, and Wonder Girl, who taken together, couldn’t look more different than each other.  If the suspect was a young red haired male wearing a yellow outfit emblazoned with a bolt of lightning, who do you think the witness is going to pick? There’s got to be a constitutional issue here, right?

How did we miss this? Friend of the blog Jay Hornack a/ka/ The Panic Street Lawyer writes up his recent tour of the Bruce Springsteen exhibit at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. As we noted and detailed in this piece, a handful of our attorneys recently caught Springsteen’s latest tour in nearby Greensboro, North Carolina. As always, a fun outing.

Here is an interesting 1966 letter, written by Harper Lee, responding to a school board’s assertion that her To Kill A Mockingbird was “immoral.”  Back in July of 2010, our own Mills Gallivan, senior partner at the firm and occasional guest author here, offered his thoughts on Lee’s famed novel and the movie based on it in a piece called “Bluejays and Mockingbirds.”  We encourage you to revisit it.

Ryan S. at The Signal Watch wonders what the current generation of children know about pop culture of generations past.  A good read, that. This is not the first time he’s written on youth culture, either. If you have friends or children starting college this fall, you might direct them to his rather amusing blog post, “The League’s Guide for Incoming Freshman.”

In the last few weeks, we here at Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. have had a few new attorneys join our offices in Greenville, Columbia, and Charlotte. Check out the details here!

Whoa.  We just realized that this is our 120th installment of Friday Links.  How about that?