Above, you’ll find the cover of Gravity #1, published not so long ago in 2005. The cover has little, if anything, to do with the law, but we had to share it. Mainly, we chose this cover because we really, really want to go see the new Alfonso Cuaron film, the science fiction thriller Gravity, which stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney and hits theaters today. Now, we should say that the new film has nothing to do whatsoever with this comic book. They are not related in any way. But we’re so fixated on the new film that we can justify posting this cover today. In fact, we’d never actually heard of the super hero Gravity before, but Wikipedia tells us:

Greg Willis is born and raised in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. During the summer after his high school graduation, while on board his family’s yacht, Greg is sucked into a mysterious black hole. He is found hours later by his parents, unharmed. After the incident, Greg finds that he is able to manipulate the gravitational force around his body and nearby objects. Looking to take advantage of his new powers, Greg moves east to New York City to study licensing and merchandising at New York University, and becomes a marketable member of the superhero community known as Gravity.

That said, we’re much more interested in the movie than this would-be superhero. Oh, well.

Buzzfeed presents: “21 Strange And Offensive Things That Happened To Lois Lane.” Yikes.

The October 2013 issue of the G-Bar News is out, and you can find it here.  As you may recall, the G-Bar News is the official publication of the Greenville County, South Carolina Bar association.

Apparently, the federal government shutdown is affecting craft beer! Check out this article from the Beer of SC blog.

Twenty years ago today, on October 1, 1993, the film Malice was released to theatres. Directed by Harold Becker, written by Aaron Sorkin and Scott Frank based on a story by Sorkin and Jonas McCord, the film centers around a brilliant surgeon who becomes entangled in a medical malpractice suit.  It’s a mess of a film with so many plot contrivances and melodramatic turns that we couldn’t do it justice with a brief summary. In fact, check out the plot summary on the film’s Wikipedia entry and you’ll see just what we mean. Starring Alec Baldwin, Nicole Kidman, and Bill Pullman, the film resonates with lawyers – even two decades later – due to a scene in which Dr. Jed Hill (the surgeon in question, played by Alec Baldwin), exclaims during a deposition that he believes himself to be God. You remember that scene, right? Courtesy of IMDB, here’s the dialogue in question:

I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardiothoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn’t miscarry or that their daughter doesn’t bleed to death or that their mother doesn’t suffer acute neural trauma from postoperative shock, who do you think they’re praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, Dennis, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you’re looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn’t like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God.

(You can watch the full scene here.). Now, we remembered the scene a bit differently before we revisited it for this blog post.  We had always thought that Dr. Jed Hill was the deponent, but that’s not the case. Rather, it is his superior at the hospital, Dr. Martin Kessler (played by George C. Scott), who is being deposed in the matter. For some reason or another, Dr. Hill, the defendant in the suit, is present at this deposition. It is during an off the record break in the proceedings that Dr. Hill makes his famous speech. (In an episode of “30 Rock” aired years and years later, Jack Donaghy, makes reference to this scene and confesses he once referred to himself as God in a deposition.).

We’re not the only ones who have blogged about this film lately.  Check out Alex Craigie of the At Counsel Table blog’s post, “Why It’s Critical To Get a Stipulation To Go ‘Off The Record’ In Deposition,” which uses this very scene as an example.

We leave you with the opening paragraph of film critic Roger Ebert’s review, published 20 years ago today:

Malice is one of the busiest movies I’ve ever seen, a film jampacked with characters and incidents and blind alleys and red herrings. Offhand, this is the only movie I can recall in which an entire subplot about a serial killer is thrown in simply for atmosphere.

If you’re up for a messy and crazy movie from the early 1990’s, this may be the one for you.

Today, Abnormal Use continues its series, “Abnormal Interviews,” in which this site will conduct interviews with law professors, practitioners and makers of legal themed popular culture. For the latest installment, we turn to Ryan Ferrier, creator of the comic book series Tiger Lawyer, in which a tiger establishes a successful career as a courtroom litigator. Take a look at the panels above – which Mr. Ferrier mentions below in response to one of our questions – and you’ll get a good feel for the character and his series. On a number of occasions, we’ve mentioned this fateful character (here, here, here, here, and here.) Last week, Mr. Ferrier was kind enough to submit to an interview with our site. Without further ado, the interview is as follows:

BIOGRAPHY: Ryan Ferrier is a Canadian comic book writer and letterer. He currently writes Tiger Lawyer and The Brothers James for Challenger Comics, a self-publishing comic collective he runs with artist Brian Level. Ryan also letters Robocop: Last Stand for Boom Studios, as well as Skybreaker and Theremin for Monkeybrain comics. He can be found on Twitter at @ryanwriter.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that this Sunday the final episode of “Breaking Bad” airs on AMC. We’re crestfallen. But we’re excited. We can’t wait.  We love Bob Odenkirk’s portrayal of Saul Goodman, the crooked lawyer who advises anti-hero Walter White. So, today, we pause to reflect upon Breaking Bad: All Bad Things, a digital comic book published earlier this year (which we didn’t know about until we Googled the search term “Breaking Bad Comic Book.”).  Quite frankly, we’re not sure how we’re going to cope without “Breaking Bad,” and we can only guess what is in store for the characters on the series who (currently) remain alive. We assumed there had to be some type of adaptation, and we were right. For more on this issue (and to read it!), please see here and here.

In music news, Roger Waters regrets suing Pink Floyd.

The Legal Geeks pick apart the “spotty” legal record in the television show “Veronica Mars.”

You could buy Kurt Cobain’s childhood home for only $500,000!

We’ve cited an 1884 “dead horse” law in any of our briefings, but not too long ago, the Internal Revenue Service did.  For more, see here.

Let’s say you are a juror in a first degree murder case. Some advice: Don’t look up the state’s expert on Facebook and message him. Seems reasonable enough, right? Well, let’s talk about State v. Smith, — S.W.3d —, No. M2010–01384–SC–R11–CD (Tenn. Sept. 10, 2013). That appeal, as the court set forth, concerned “the appropriate response when a trial court learns during a jury’s deliberations that a juror exchanged Facebook messages with one of the State’s witnesses during the trial.”

Sigh.  Here we go again.

During void dire, the attorneys did not ask the prospective jurors if they knew the assistant medical examiner who performed the autopsy and would testify on behalf of the state (even though several or the jurors were employed by the Vanderbilt Medical Center, where the witness had trained). Of course, as is custom, the trial court instructed the seated jurors not to speak with any of the attorneys or witnesses. The trial proceeded as per usual. However, during the jury deliberations, the assistant medical examiner emailed the trial judge the following missive:

I can’t send you actual copies of the emails since Facebook is blocked from my computer here at work, but here is a transcript:

[Juror]: “A-dele!! I thought you did a great job today on the witness stand … I was in the jury … not sure if you recognized me or not!! You really explained things so great!!”

[Medical Examiner]: “I was thinking that was you. There is a risk of a mistrial if that gets out.”

[Juror]: “I know … I didn’t say anything about you … there are 3 of us on the jury from Vandy and one is a physician (cardiologist) so you may know him as well. It has been an interesting case to say the least.”

I regret responding to his email at all, but regardless I felt that this was a fairly serious violation of his responsibilities as a juror and that I needed to make you and General Miller aware. I did not recognize the above-referenced cardiologist or any other jurors.

First of all, yikes. The trial court informed the attorneys of the communication, and the jury ultimately returned with a verdict of guilty. The trial court denied a motion for new trial based on its refusal to permit the defense to question the juror about the improper communications. The court of appeals affirmed. Here’s what the Tennessee Supreme Court said:

Even though technology has made it easier for jurors to communicate with third parties and has made these communications more difficult to detect, our pre-internet precedents provide appropriate principles and procedures to address extra-judicial communications, even when they occur on social media websites and applications such as Facebook.

…

When the trial court received competent and reliable evidence that an extra-judicial communication between a juror and a State’s witness had taken place during the trial, it was required to do more than simply inform the parties about the email and then await the jury’s verdict. The trial court erred by failing to immediately conduct a hearing in open court to obtain all the relevant facts surrounding the extra-judicial communication between [the medical examiner] and [the juror]. This hearing may very well have necessitated calling both [the juror] and [the medical examiner] to testify under oath about their relationship and the effect of the communication on [the juror’s] ability to serve as a juror. Because the contents of the email focus only on events occurring before the jury received its instructions and retired to deliberate, the court may also have been required to call other members of the jury to determine whether [the juror in question] shared any extraneous information with other jurors.

…

[T]he portion of the trial court’s order that denies Mr. Smith’s motion for a new trial based on [the juror’s] improper extra-judicial communication with [the medical examiner] is vacated. The case is remanded to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether [the juror’s] Facebook communication with [the medical examiner] disqualified him from continuing to serve on Mr. Smith’s jury. Following this hearing, the trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether the challenged communication requires [the juror’s] disqualification or whether [the juror’s] misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. If, for any reason, the trial court is unable to conduct a full and fair hearing with regard to [the juror’s] improper extra-judicial communication with [the medical examiner], then the trial court shall grant Mr. Smith a new trial.

The facts of this case demonstrate that this technological age now requires trial courts to take additional precautions to assure that jurors understand their obligation to base their decisions only on the evidence admitted in court. Trial courts should give jurors specific, understandable instructions that prohibit extra-judicial communications with third parties and the use of technology to obtain facts that have not been presented in evidence. Trial courts should clearly prohibit jurors’ use of devices such as smart phones and tablet computers to access social media websites or applications to discuss, communicate, or research anything about the trial.  In addition, trial courts should inform jurors that their failure to adhere to these prohibitions may result in a mistrial and could expose them to a citation for contempt. Trial courts should deliver these instructions and admonitions on more than one occasion.

(Footnotes omitted).

What the heck was this juror thinking? The trial court instructed the jurors not to communicate with witnesses during the course of the trial. This means that even after hearing that instruction from the court, the juror ventured home from the courthouse, logged into Facebook, looked up the medical examiner’s profile, and send him a direct message on that social media site. Gee whiz.

Above, you’ll find the cover of The Best of DC #16, published way, way back in 1981.  “Happy Anniversary” the cake on the cover proclaims, and we share it because of yesterday’s milestone.  In case you missed it, yesterday, we published our 1,000th post (which means this here edition of Friday Links is our 1,001st post.).  We still can’t believe it.  So we will celebrate. Try and stop us. If you’ve been with us for some or all of the duration, remember that you can follow us on Twitter here and on Facebook here.

Okay. Someone is litigating The Chipmunks movies. For real. See here. We would like to see the Word Index on one of the depositions to see how many times the word “Squeakquel” is used.

Whoa! “More than 60 percent of people pretend to have read books they haven’t, according to a recent survey.” We swear we read Finnegan’s Wake. Three times!

This is our new favorite photograph from 1978.  It’s of Muhammad Ali reading the Superman vs. Muhammad Ali comic book. Enjoy.

Check this out: “Top 10 Reasons Not to Bother With a Law Firm App,” written by the North Carolina Bar Association’s own Erik Mazzone.

This may be the most important public service announcement we’ve ever made: “Breaking Bad” will run long this weekend, so you may want to adjust your DVR settings.  For more, see here.

Get this: You are now reading our 1,000th post here at Abnormal Use.  I know, we can’t believe it, either. Posting every business day since January 2010 has led us to this fateful point.

As you may know, we’ve previously paused to reflect on previous milestones: 100 posts back in May of 2010, 500 posts back in November of 2011,  700 posts back in July of 2012, and 750 posts back in October 2012.

But a thousand? That’s just nuts. Action Comics didn’t even make it to 1,000 issues (not that we can compare ourselves to it).

All this nostalgia prompts us to revisit our Abnormal Use mission statement, published on Monday, January 4, 2010, our first day of operations:

We, a group of attorneys working together at Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. in Greenville, South Carolina, have started this blog in an effort to provide thoughtful and thorough commentary on federal and state products liability litigation. In so doing, we will analyze the latest reported opinions, news, and events relating to this area of practice. This is a broad topic, and we expect there to be a wealth of material to cover.

…

. . . [W]e will provide discussion and commentary in this area. To keep matters lively and interesting, we will occasionally pause to bring you lighter fare, including analysis of intriguing developments in general litigation and perhaps even thoughts on the depiction of products liability in popular culture. Whatever the case, we plan to bring you content you cannot find elsewhere.

Since we wrote that three and a half years ago, our firm has expanded and opened two new offices, one in Columbia, South Carolina, the other in Charlotte, North Carolina (where our blog editor now works). We’ve had lawyers join and retire from the blog. We’ve been cited by The New York Times, Scientific American, and NPR, and we’ve been fortunate enough to be named to the ABA Journal‘s Blawg 100 three years in a row. We’ve even managed to score a few interviews with Hollywood producers, actors, and other celebrities.  All the while, we think we’ve held true to our original mission, stated not too long ago (but three and a half years is a lifetime in blogging years).

This milestone simply could not have been reached without the support of our firm and our attorney contributors. We owe this success to them.

Above, by the way, you’ll find the cover of The Spectacular Spider-Man #1000, although that is somewhat misleading, as that series never actually reached that many issues. (They just labeled a special issue as issue 1,000.).

Not too long ago, we directed your attention to a federal case in which a Kris Kristofferson song was at issue. We lamented the fact that the court in question did not see fit to cite the song at issue as per the dictates of Blue Book rule 18.6.1, entitled “Commercial Recordings.” Here’s that rule:

Cite Commercial Recordings by artist and title, providing the name of the recording company and the date of release (if available):

* Cowboy Mouth, Are You With Me? (MCA Records 1996).

* The Beatles, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Capitol Records 1990) (1967).

If a particular song or musical work is referred to, cited by analogy to shorter words in a collection according to rule 15.5.1:

* Don Henley, The Boys of Summer, On Building the Perfect Beast (Geffen Records 1984).

Well, that is from the 18^th edition of the Blue Book, which is the one we had handy. The fact that the most recent cited example of an audio recording is from 1996 struck us funny, although we are certainly fans of Cowboy Mouth, a New Orleans rock band made famous for its rock anthem “Jenny Says.” But Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band? Building the Perfect Beast? We’re huge Beatles fans, but come on, surely the authors of the Blue Book – comprised of the editors of the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Review, can cite some more recent records and songs than those? First, the quibble with the Beatles citation. Why cite to a later pressing from 1990 when one can and should simply cite to the original 1967 recording? Further, wouldn’t it have been better to cite Rubber Soul or Revolver?

Next, Don Henley? Sure, we love “The Boys of Summer,” with its classic reference to aging hippies with their “Deadhead stickers on Cadillacs,” but how many law students using the Blue Book will recognize Henley and this classic from 1984? At this point, most law students were born after 1984, anyway. Surely we could throw some Radiohead in there?

So, come on, editors, let’s throw in some updated references! (Full disclosure: We’re still using the 18th edition, so let us know if they’ve already updated these issues in the 19th.).

Today, Abnormal Use continues its series, “Abnormal Interviews,” in which this site will conduct interviews with law professors, practitioners and makers of legal themed popular culture. For the latest installment, we turn to Brook Bristow, a brewery lawyer based in Greenville, South Carolina. You may remember that we’ve done a few beer related interviews in the past, the first with Adam Avery of the Avery Brewing Company about its Collaboration Not Litigation Ale, the second with Daniel Hartis, the author of the book Charlotte Beer: A History of Brewing In The Queen City. There have been some recent changes in South Carolina’s brewery laws, and because we like to talk about beer, we asked Brook to answer a few questions for us. He was kind enough to agree. The interview is as follows:

1.  How is South Carolina responding to the craft beer movement?

When it comes to change in South Carolina, I always like to say that we have two speeds: slow and stop. However, craft beer has been an exception to that rule. In fact, the craft beer movement has only really hit South Carolina in the last ten years. Since 2007, the law has been changed three times when it comes to local breweries. That’s incredible. Prior to 2007, brewers here couldn’t make anything over 5 percent ABW. Now, with the changes in law, our breweries are producing world class beers and are gaining notoriety nationwide. We’re producing many jobs both in the craft beer industry and related ones. Additionally, since the law was changed in 2010 to allow beer tastings at breweries, we’ve seen a proliferation in the number of breweries opening, with more on the way. We have many bottle shops throughout the state that offer growlers, bottles, and kegs. Our fan following has grown exponentially the last few years, as more and more people are exposed to craft beer. We’re also seeing a significant increase in beer tourism. On a weekly basis, there are hundreds of craft beer enthusiasts that attend tours and tastings at the breweries.  Many of these patrons are coming from surrounding states, as well as many reported foreign visitors. This is true of all of the breweries in South Carolina. We’re also having quite a bit of reach. For example, while I was in Colorado recently at Rocky Mountain National Park, my girlfriend and I actually pulled off the road to view some elk. A guy who worked at the national park actually walked up to me because he saw my Holy City Brewing shirt and started telling me about how much he loved their brown ale called Pecan Dream. It was unbelievable to see the reach that our brewers are starting to have.

2.  What do you think is the biggest legal obstacle to small brewers in South Carolina?

Prior to the passage of the new Pint Law, it would have been the inability to sell more than four 4 ounce tasters glasses to a consumer per day.  That was a big source of revenue that was being missed out on, not to mention the beer tourism implications.  The biggest issue now is probably excise taxes.  While there is some proposed legislation in Washington to reduce the federal excise rate on brewers who make less than 60,000 barrels of beer per year, the bigger problem is the South Carolina excise tax.  For every gallon of beer, there is a $0.77 excise tax.  That’s good enough for being in the top ten of states that charge the most on beer.  Compare that with states at the bottom, like Wyoming that only charges $0.02, Colorado and Oregon at $0.08, and Montana at $0.14.  That would be a big savings.

3. What do you think is the biggest obstacle to consumers of craft beer in South Carolina?

Compared to where we were a year ago, craft consumers have it pretty good in South Carolina.  Sure, you’ll occasionally hear complaints that there is a consumption limit of 48 ounces in brewery taprooms per day, but people understand how far we have come.  Perhaps one obstacle for some craft beer consumers in the state is the availability of local beer in some areas, but this has changed in recent years.  While some areas of the state do not have their own local brewery yet, we’ve seen very large growth over the last few years and certainly after the recent change in law on tastings.  I’d expect that trend to continue and for breweries to keep popping up all over South Carolina.

4. What do you think has been the biggest legal victory for the craft beer movement in South Carolina?

There have certainly been a few going back to 2007.  The Pint Law was huge and the tasting law before that was very big.  But, you have to start somewhere and the Pop the Cap movement was the catalyst for everything.  Pop the Cap was the effort to raise South Carolina’s ABW cap on beer.  When the movement started in 2005, the cap was a mere 5 percent ABW.  After a long and grueling effort to educate the public and legislators, the law was changed in 2007, which raised the cap to 14 percent ABW.  What that did was it allowed South Carolina brewers to make new beers, to be more creative, and to educate the public about what craft beer could be.  Without Pop the Cap, South Carolina wouldn’t be where it is today.

5.  What was the Pint Bill, and how did it come about? What’s next in light of that victory?

Since 2010, our breweries have been allowed to have limited tastings. Prior to passage of the Pint Bill, breweries were only allowed to serve 4 tasters to customers (at most). Usually, those were 4 ounce tasters; however, if the ABW was high enough, then the specific beer could only be a 2 ounce pour. So, at best, as a customer you could come to a brewery and only have 16 ounces in tasters. As for growlers to take off-premises, the law was the same as it is now – 288 ounces. It’s important to note that our breweries just won the right to have tastings at all in 2010. Prior to that, breweries could do nothing but produce beer. The Pint Bill was an effort to boost the revenues of the breweries and also allow them to start competing more meaningfully with the states around us, including North Carolina, which has much more expansive laws. Like everyone, we saw that those laws not only led to a boom for new local breweries, but also landed the state two $100 million plus investments by West Coast breweries that are moving East – New Belgium and Sierra Nevada. That in addition to the millions of dollars being contributed by a third large West Coast brewery – Oskar Blues. Prior to passage of the bill, those breweries wouldn’t have even considered South Carolina. However, now, we can at least provide some incentive for popular western breweries that would like to expand their operations to the east coast. The Pint Bill (now Law) provides that our breweries can sell 48 ounces a day to a consumer for on-site consumption. There are many restrictions that go along with that, but the concessions made for passage were more than worth it.

What’s next? More breweries on the way, for sure. Quite a few in fact. By my last count, we’ve got at least nine in planning with probably about four opening up in the next few months. It’ll be interesting to see how we deal with this golden age of craft beer in South Carolina. We’re well on our way to having about 20 breweries open by the beginning of next year. That’s a new experience for us. I’m hopeful that we can not only maintain those numbers, but continue to grow them and produce great quality beer.

6. How has the expansion of social media assisted in the growth of the craft beer movement?

It’s been huge.  It certainly was instrumental in getting the word out for advocacy on the Pint Law here in South Carolina.  It’s also being used with great success nationally, whether that is in Tennessee with efforts to reduce the nation’s worst beer excise tax or recently in Alabama and Mississippi to finally legalize homebrewing.  As to craft beer generally, it’s a great way to communicate with other beer fans nationally and internationally, as well as to find out what is new from the growing number of breweries across the country.  While some might complain that it has added to the sometimes unwarranted hyping of certain beers and breweries, to me, it’s like any other information source – that being you should take what you see and hear with a grain of salt, and evaluate it for yourself. If nothing else, it’s a way to keep yourself informed of what’s going on in a more up-to-the-minute sense.

BONUS QUESTIONS:

Favorite South Carolina beer?

It really is hard to go wrong with craft beer in South Carolina.  Some of my favorites are Holy City Brewing’s Pluff Mud Porter, Coast Brewing’s Barrel Aged Blackbeerd Imperial Stout, Brewery 85’s Quittin’ Time, and Quest Brewing’s Kaldi Imperial Coffee Stout.

Favorite North Carolina beer?

There is certainly is a wide selection!  I’ve always enjoyed what I have had from Foothills in Winston Salem and Fullsteam in Raleigh.  At the moment though, I’m fascinated with Burial Brewing in Asheville.  It’s an up-and-coming nanobrewery co-owned by a former brewery lawyer from Seattle.  Their Voorhamer Imperial Stout is one of best I have had.

Favorite non-Carolina beer?

Depends on my mood, but I’m a big fan of Founders Breakfast Stout, Heady Topper, Black Tuesday, and Parabola.

Favorite style of beer?

Easily, imperial stout.  But I also like porters and bigger IPAs.

Favorite beer related website?

Believe it or not, I don’t go on too many beer blogs. Since part of my law practice entails representing breweries, the Brewers Association website is a great resource on some of the issues involved, so I check that out on a regular basis.

Favorite song about beer?

I’ll go the dive bar route and go with George Thorogood’s “One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer.”

BIOGRAPHY: Brook Bristow is an associate in the office of Bradford Neal Martin, PA in Greenville, South Carolina.  His practice is primarily in business and employment law, where he represents local businesses, including several South Carolina breweries.  He runs the Beer of SC beer blog, where he focuses on legal issues affecting small brewers, especially in South Carolina.  He also works with the South Carolina Brewers Association on legislative and legal issues. You can follow him on Twitter at either @beerofsc or @brookbristow.

Depicted above is the cover of Judge Dredd #2, published 30 years ago in 1983.  You may have learned of the character from the two big budget forgettable films it spawned (one starring Sylvester Stallone as the title character, the other featuring Karl Urban in the role). But who is Judge Dredd? Of what judiciary does he call himself a member? Wikipedia tells us that he is “an American law enforcement officer in a violent city of the future where uniformed Judges are empowered to arrest, sentence, and execute criminals at the scene of crime.” So he’s a municipal judge? We have always wondered if Judge Dredd has a civil litigation counterpart. We’d watch that movie.

Can you believe that it was two years ago this month that R.E.M. called it quits? Revisit our post “The Life and Death of R.E.M.,” originally published on September 26, 2011.

Cheap Trick remains in litigation. Cue the “I Want You To Sue Me” jokes.

We wonder how many of our dear readers were at the Mumford & Sons concert this past Wednesday in Simpsonville, South Carolina, just a few short miles from our Greenville home office. It was very, very crowded.

The latest edition of the G-Bar News is out! That’s the Greenville, South Carolina local bar association’s publication, if you are not already in the know. See here ( and be sure to check out page 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for references to GWB attorneys!).

By the way, don’t forget that today is Friday the 13th. Be careful out there, folks. (Please note that we resisted the urge to post the cover of a Friday The 13th comic book adaptation.).