SC Supreme Court Ridiculousness

The S.C. Supreme Court has unanimously suspended the law license of a retired attorney it says poses “a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to the administration of justice” in the Palmetto State. What is this retired lawyer accused of? The abominable crime of … not having…

The S.C. Supreme Court has unanimously suspended the law license of a retired attorney it says poses “a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to the administration of justice” in the Palmetto State.

What is this retired lawyer accused of? The abominable crime of … not having an email address.

No really … attorney Cynthia E. Collie of Sullivans Island, S.C. (who doesn’t have internet access and says she hasn’t represented a client in more than three decades) is the subject of an exhaustive S.C. Supreme Court order removing her law license “until further order of the Court.”

All because she doesn’t have an email address …

According to an October 2011 court order, every attorney in South Carolina was given a one-month deadline to provide “a mailing address, an e-mail address, and a telephone or cell phone number” to the court’s Attorney Information System (AIS).

That same order also mandated that lawyers in South Carolina “verify and update their information in the AIS,” and “ensure that the AIS information is current and accurate at all times.”

Collie updated her information – but left the email form blank. Again … because she had no email address.

Collie has also been unsuccessful – repeatedly, it would appear – in creating an email account for the sole purpose of complying with the court’s mandate.

“Respondent has repeatedly refused to comply with the explicit directives, orders, and rules of this Court and of requests by the Clerk of Court by refusing to maintain and monitor an operational email account,” the Court says in its latest ruling. “As a result of her persistent refusal to comply with this Court’s directives, the Court finds respondent poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to the administration of justice.”


Sounds more like a complete and total waste of judicial resources if you ask us …

Related posts


Henry McMaster Dispatches National Guard Troops To Southern Border

Will Folks

Mark Powell’s Palmetto Past & Present: The Angel Of Marye’s Heights

Mark Powell

South Carolina Highway Patrol Investigating ‘Table Topping’



Original Good Old Boy October 23, 2013 at 1:56 pm

To be fair, and despite the court’s hyperbole, she’s being suspended for failing to follow a court order. I believe the court wants to move to electronic filing and notices, and it’s hard to give an attorney electronic notice of a hearing if they don’t have an email address.

The Trash Man October 24, 2013 at 5:14 pm

The court has no authority to force her – or even punish her – for failing to have an email address when she has provided, repeatedly I might add, her US postal mailing address and a working phone number as means of contact.
The SC Supreme Court if out of order, I tell you. They will get bitched slapped hard over this crapola.

Justus October 24, 2013 at 7:30 pm

When you sign up for the mob you can’t bitch when they try to whack you.

WTF November 7, 2013 at 12:39 am

I hate to break it to you, but you are completely wrong. The SC Supreme Court (for better or for worse) has complete and unfettered authority to decide who may or may not practice law in this state and to discipline attorneys as they see fit.

Slartibartfast October 25, 2013 at 12:50 pm

And if she had done what the Supremes wanted, she could justify her agreeance* by claiming she was “just following orders.”

*first used as a word in English in the mid to late 1500’s, regardless of what the prig at “unwords . com” says.

jimlewisowb October 23, 2013 at 2:17 pm

Wonder how many outside contracts were awarded to process this action. Surely no one currently sitting on the Supreme Court would waste their time with such a mundane task

Fucking Cockroaches

Hoot October 23, 2013 at 2:33 pm

Read the opinion. The email address issue is just the tip of the iceburg. She’s thumbing her nose at the court repeatedly and blatantly. She’s playing games–the same kind of games you call out lawyers on all the time on this site. As for her being “unsuccessful” in creating an email address, anyone can create gmail account in about five minutes.
Why detract from whatever credibility you have by only reporting half of the story? Not every story has to have a hook. Then again, I guess that’s how you get paid…

Jesus H. Christ! October 23, 2013 at 6:08 pm

I know I feel safer now that this non-practicing attorney has been duly chastised for not having Internet access.

Tom October 23, 2013 at 6:15 pm

Well if she is non-practicing she won’t miss her law license will she?

Still Waiting Still Waiting October 27, 2013 at 10:02 pm Reply
SCBlues October 23, 2013 at 8:09 pm

Thank you, Hoot! The credibility you mention is long gone – the only reporting is the rancid pieces of red meat that is tossed out to the yelping minions – and the minions prefer the half-truths and the skewed perspective that enables them to feel comfortable staying hostage to their upbringing . . .

The Trash Man October 24, 2013 at 5:15 pm

You are clearly full of shit.

Jackie Chiles October 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm

Should’ve just created a gmail account. It’s not that hard.

Edgar October 23, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Its a Toal control issue. Yeah, this woman thumbed her nose at the Court because she didn’t want to get a faux email address – just to say she had one. She does not intend to email. The lawyer was the one being honest. Something no one has ever accused Queen Jean of being.

Vinny, who are you going to vote for? Toal or Pleicones? What have your handlers told you to do?

PMK October 23, 2013 at 3:24 pm

The real story here is that Pelicones did not dissent.

Jackie Chiles October 23, 2013 at 3:37 pm

The fact that this woman would rather fight a case to the SC Supreme Court rather than enter a few letters into a blank on the internet says a lot about her.

Mongo October 24, 2013 at 7:33 pm

Why Jackie, are you calling this women principled?

Jackie Chiles October 25, 2013 at 12:39 pm

No. In my opinion, she must be an argumentative and stubborn person. She “stood up” for the right to not have an e-mail address? Congrats. What a modern day Rosa Parks. Arguing over such a mundane and minor thing is just a waste of time.

Columbia PD October 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm

Nobody asked you, you ignorant rabble-rousing fool. Read the whole opinion. And any attorney who can’t figure out how to set up an email address in 2013 can’t possibly represent a client, anymore than a half-ass, douche bag loser who spends the working day wearing underwear could get by without a computer with which to spew complete f’n nonsense.

SCBlues October 23, 2013 at 8:10 pm


Loserville, population 1, you October 24, 2013 at 7:38 pm

I can’t believe it! An angry cop!

JC October 23, 2013 at 5:28 pm

The complete waste of judicial resources can be wholly blamed on the Respondent, who filed eight petitions trying to address the same matters, even after being told not to file. And for someone who hates “trial lawyers”, why not contact the Family Court clerks throughout the state and ask them who wastes the most amount of judicial resources. Guarantee you that 9 out of 10 say “pro se litigants.”

Squishy123 October 23, 2013 at 5:31 pm

I think the reason she may not have an e-mail address is because [email protected] was already taken by Toal.

Mike at the Beach October 23, 2013 at 11:47 pm

Holy shit dude…I peed a little.

Guero October 30, 2013 at 9:09 pm

She was an opthalmologist for the last 30 years. She went to medical school after deciding she didn’t want to be a lawyer. Over the last ten years, she has filed so many frivolous lawsuits and motions the courts have instructed Clerks of Court not to accept her filings. She was told she had to have an adult ( another lawyer) cosign her filings and she refused so they shut her down.
She’s been a loon for many years.

shifty henry October 23, 2013 at 5:39 pm

Does anyone know what she has been doing for THREE DECADES, says she is retired, or why she wants to maintain her law license?

Jesus H. Christ! October 23, 2013 at 6:10 pm

So what’s the scoop on the other case referred to in the order? Cynthia Holmes vs Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd?

legal begal October 23, 2013 at 8:58 pm

He obviously did something egregious, like, not kissing Toal’s ass or supporting her opponent, or representing one of her foes, in the past.

Lewis October 24, 2013 at 8:29 am

I agree. If this lawyer had been an “FOJ” – friend of Jean’s – this would never have come to light. It’s all about getting to Jean in the South Carolina Judicial Branch of Government.

Dog Pound October 24, 2013 at 7:35 pm

Nice spelling counselor.

Try a bit of research October 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm

Take a look at all of the frivolous filings in the underlying Charleston County case. She has already been sanctioned for her baseless filings. That is what started all of this. If anything, the Court waited too long to shut down her behavior.

Slartibartfast October 23, 2013 at 10:15 pm

Is the Supreme Court ruling on something that is NOT a law? In any case, the Supremes got caught by the booger of unintended consequences and are too arrogant to admit they screwed up.

Judy October 24, 2013 at 10:25 am

If Queen Jean says the moon is made of swiss cheese, then it is. That’s the law in her mind. What’s your question?

RBS October 24, 2013 at 1:48 pm

The Supreme Court is also responsible for ruling on all attorney discipline matters in this state. At least make an attempt at being informed before you comment.

Slartibartfast October 24, 2013 at 5:53 pm

What a complete pompous ass you are! My point was that our Supreme court should not be ruling at all on matters that do not directly effect them. If they want to keep a lawyer from arguing in front of them, that’s one thing, but to make such a repulsive and egotistic ruling, argues to my point. Perhaps, if your reading skills were sharper, you would have gleaned that. But having read some of your comments, I suppose that is too much to expect.

Just another esq. October 24, 2013 at 9:16 pm

RBS, perhaps that begs the question of if this (the e-mail issue alone) constitutes a true attorney discipline matter in the first instance. Or is it like the commerce clause which can just cover whatever the court or congress wants it to cover.

Retired Esq October 25, 2013 at 10:45 am

BINGO! You win.

RBS October 25, 2013 at 1:02 pm

No. It’s mandatory for members of the bar to have a valid email address in the AIS. Argue about the merits of the rule if you want but it’s a rule promulgated by the body in charge of making rules for attorneys in this state. Violate those rules get disciplined.

Anon. October 23, 2013 at 11:13 pm

She should have gotten her Great, Great, Great Grandchild to create one.

HD October 24, 2013 at 7:42 am

Seriously – do you not have the capacity to comprehend a simple court order? Her suspension is the result of her refusal to comply with several different orders of the Court, only one of which dealt with having an email account. In any event, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Court to have suspended her license solely on account of her refusal to maintain an active email account. You quite consistently look foolish when you wander out of your comfort zone (salacious rumor and innuendo) into areas that actually require some knowledge and education.

The Trash Man October 24, 2013 at 5:12 pm

The SC Supreme Court is a pathetic joke. BTW, check Jeal Toal’s trash and you will find at least 15 empty bottles of wine and booze on any given week. I saw her a few weeks ago going at least 60 mph – zig zagging in and out of traffic – and in a 35 mph zone. The women is nuts, I tell you … a threat and menace to society. She should be stripped of her robe this instant!

Judge Judy October 24, 2013 at 7:36 pm

If someone manages to do that could you make sure a towel or something along those lines is near by to cover her up?

shifty henry October 25, 2013 at 8:37 am

The word on the street is that Halloween Night will be the safest night of the year to party in Five Points. There will no gangsta’s or thugs to be seen. Toal will be partying and her party outfit is that she will be completely—–NEKKID!

The Trash Man October 24, 2013 at 5:17 pm

Want to see SC Supreme Court “unpublished” opinions that will prove to the people of South Carolina just how out of order, pathetic, and rogue this court really is???? There is enough to bring the walls down, I tell you.

Lilly Collette October 24, 2013 at 5:41 pm

Hey Jean remember your failure to deal with this fraud by corrupted family court:


Leave a Comment