Print this Page


FITSNews – November 7, 2007 – If there’s one thing we learned from breaking the Beattygate scandal earlier this year (and our ongoing workers’ comp coverage), it’s that a veritable sh*t-ton of lawyers read this website. Seriously, you’d think we were pure Colombian coke (or at the very least a flattering tailor) given how addicted the state’s legal community is with FITSNews, to which we can only say “we gotcha where we want’cha, now we’re gonna eat’cha.”

Actually, we won’t say that, but what we will do is break the story of a developing flap between the S.C. Supreme Court and the S.C. Bar Association, which hopefully will result in a lot more lawyers wasting additional time on our website.

As far as we can tell, the dust-up centers around the State Supreme Court effectively reversing its position on refusing appeals from students who fail the bar exam, a policy which was instituted just last year.

In a mass e-mail sent to S.C. Bar Association members yesterday, however, the Court noted that after reviewing the 2007 bar exam scores, it had “determined that the Wills, Trusts and Estates section of the examination will not be considered” and that “as a result of this change, additional applicants have now passed the examination.”

While it’s true that we’re not charter members of C+C Music Factory (God, that we were), such a quantum shift in a brand new policy definitely falls into the category of “Things That Make You Go Hmmmm.”

In fact, sources tell FITSNews that a number of powerful, politically-connected members of the S.C. Bar Association are hoppin’ mad at the Supremes right now, and that the organization may be preparing to publicly reveal what they maintain is “the truth” behind the seemingly-innocuous change.

Specifically, our sources tell us that “improper legislative pressure” was applied in this instance, although they declined to elaborate on who they were referring to, or the nature of the alleged impropriety.

All we know is that tempers are high, threats are being tossed around like weak martinis at a tort convention, and before long this thing could escalate into Michael Jackson’s “Beat It” video, except with more white people, less leather and obviously, no singing.

UPDATE – We’ve called the Supreme Court to try and get some sort of official comment from them as to why they effectively reversed this ruling, but our experience has been that the judicial branch of government rarely “puts out” when it comes to its dealings with the Fourth Estate. Stay tuned …