|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
More than $35 million in judgments were entered this week in Greenville County, South Carolina against defendants who accused several well-known Upstate attorneys and probate professionals of operating a criminal probate scheme — allegations a judge found defamatory, unsupported and recklessly spread.
In six separate orders filed on Thursday (March 12, 2026), S.C. circuit court judge Eugene C. Griffith, Jr. finalized damages awards for attorney Roland O’Neil Rabon Jr., attorney Fred W. “Trey” Suggs III, attorney Joseph Plaxco, attorney Clayton Jennings, and Jennifer Browning along with her company, Browning Geriatric Consulting. The rulings follow a week of damages hearings held in January after defaults had already been entered against several defendants who failed to timely answer the lawsuits.
The rulings stem from a long-running legal fight over letters sent in May 2024 accusing recipients of participating in what defendants called a “sham probate enterprise” involving racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, extortion and broader violations of federal and South Carolina law. Courts ultimately found those accusations unsupported — and because defendants failed to meet key procedural deadlines, liability was established by default before damages hearings began.
That meant the January hearings focused entirely on damages – or how much reputational, emotional and economic harm the letters caused once they circulated through Greenville’s legal and business communities.
***
JUDGMENTS EXCEED $35 MILLION
The largest single award went to Rabon.
Judge Griffith awarded him $1.18 million in economic damages, $7.2 million in noneconomic damages and $3.35 million in punitive damages — a total judgment of approximately $11.73 million (.pdf). The court found the letters were sent not only to Rabon himself, but to numerous clients, attorneys and business associates, despite what the order described as defendants’ awareness of the serious damage such accusations could inflict.
Suggs received $7 million total, including $5 million in actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages (.pdf).
Jennings was awarded approximately $7.18 million, including $5.18 million in actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages (.pdf).
Plaxco received approximately $7.13 million, including $5.13 million actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages (.pdf).
Jennifer Browning and Browning Geriatric Consulting received approximately $8.75 million, combining actual damages, attorney fees and punitive damages (.pdf).
Each judgment also carries 11.5% post-judgment interest, meaning totals could increase substantially if the rulings remain unpaid during appeal.
The orders noted some plaintiffs separately settled claims against Paul Hulsey and Cherie Durand before damages hearings concluded, though the settlement amounts were not disclosed in the filed judgments.
That leaves Thursday’s rulings focused on remaining defendants, including Kimberly Thomason, Devon Puriefoy, Desa Ballard, Stacey Grist, Margaret Miniard and others named across the cases.
***
LETTERS ACCUSED RECIPIENTS OF RUNNING A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
At the center of every case were letters transmitted on May 17, 2024.
According to multiple orders, the letters accused attorneys and probate professionals of operating a coordinated criminal enterprise through probate matters involving elderly or incapacitated individuals. Recipients were accused of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — commonly known as RICO — while engaging in repeated acts of fraud, extortion and abuse of court processes.
In Jennings’ case, Judge Griffith noted the letters specifically accused him of conducting a “pattern of racketeering activity” and using the court system to advance criminal conduct — allegations the court found especially damaging given Jennings’ long-standing legal practice and former service as an associate probate judge.
The Rabon order similarly found that letters were sent broadly into his professional and personal circles without any legitimate litigation necessity.
“The letters served no purpose necessary to filing a lawsuit,” the court wrote in substance, concluding the publication was broader than necessary and foreseeably harmful.
***
RELATED | SOUTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL REFORM: PROBATE COURTS FINALLY ADDRESSED
***
GREENVILLE ATTORNEYS TESTIFIED DAMAGE WAS IMMEDIATE
During the January hearings, multiple respected Greenville attorneys testified that allegations of criminal conduct can permanently damage a lawyer’s standing.
In Jennings’ case, attorneys Bo Russell and Sidney Mitchell testified that reputation within the legal profession is foundational and that false accusations of fraud quickly spread through the local bar.
In Suggs’ hearing, testimony described similar fallout, emphasizing that accusations involving racketeering and dishonesty can undermine years of professional credibility.
In Plaxco’s case, testimony established that the allegations became widespread discussion within Greenville legal circles, with the court specifically noting how quickly the accusations became known beyond the original recipients.
The Browning order documented professional fallout extending beyond attorneys.
Judge Griffith found Browning — a longtime geriatric consultant regularly appointed in probate and guardianship matters — suffered major personal and business damage after repeated litigation and the publication of the letters.
According to testimony, Browning has stopped accepting many court appointments because of the toll the ongoing litigation has taken, creating strain for Greenville County Probate Court because of her specialized experience. The court also found she incurred more than $116,000 in legal fees tied to related litigation.
***
SANCTIONS ORDER ADDS FURTHER PRESSURE
In a separate order filed (.pdf) the same day, Judge Griffith also imposed sanctions after finding several defendants obstructed discovery during depositions.
According to the court:
- Desa Ballard refused to answer 179 of 304 questions
- Kimberly Thomason refused 124 of 341 questions
- Devon Puriefoy refused 155 of 385 questions
The court said they declined to answer even basic questions about who drafted, reviewed or mailed the letters at issue.
Judge Griffith concluded those refusals prevented plaintiffs from obtaining foundational discovery directly tied to the core claims.
***
WHAT’S NEXT
The rulings resolve one of the Palmetto Upstate’s most closely watched civil disputes involving probate litigation, attorney conduct and professional reputation.
Because the judgments are now final, defendants may seek appellate review — but unless overturned, the orders will stand as one of the most significant collective defamation awards ever issued in South Carolina.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
2 comments
Fun fact: if any of these defendants were members of the General Assembly and said the exact same kinds of defamatory things against these plaintiffs, the plaintiffs would have not received a single dime via judgment, because of a common law recognition of speech and debate immunity for our legislators by our Supreme Court, regardless of the fact that our current and former constitution provides no such immunity.
Remember when Charleston County Probate Court was turned inside out and corruption was exposed that threatened a probate judge with prison?
Have seen a wicked female SC lawyer and her client go into default. Entry of the same was filed. Then the wicked defendents went crying to the presiding judge who behind the scenes then set the default aside without even holding a HEARING or notifying the Plaintiff!
In another SC circuit court case, that exact same female attorney was caught red handed intentionally lying to that judge. He scolded her in the courtroom.
An attorney who had to deal with the wicked female caught her lying to another SC judge. When that attorney exited the courtroom, he was so angry with her for knowingly and willfully lying to the court, he was so angry that he was clinching his first wire fire in his eyes and verbally made it known she was a pathological liar.
All of the above is absolutely true and documented. But lawyers dare not report other lawyers for misconduct. It’s too risky in this corrupt system. The laws and court rules mean nothing in SC. I shake my head in disbelief at it all
Does no good to report these slimes because their cronies will protect them. You see,they have have dirt on each other just like I do … *smiles*