Burts Turner & Rhodes | 260 N. Church Street | Spartanburg | SC 29306



Litigation is the adversarial side to the practice of law. It begins by the filing of a Complaint, when efforts to settle a dispute outside of Court have failed. The litigation process continues through various methods of discovery [learning about the other side’s case], motions before the Court, possible mediation, a trial before a judge or jury, and possibly an appeal. The complexity and time needed to complete a case varies dramatically, depending on the issues in dispute.

Free Consultation - Call (864) 641-3377

Legal representation does not always require an individual to go through every step of litigation, as most cases are favorably negotiated and resolved between the parties after litigation begins. However, the majority of situations faced by persons who are in need of legal assistance will involve litigation, and the advice of experienced and competent counsel is strongly advised. Our firm has litigated thousands of cases since the firm’s creation in 1955.

Our firm has handled multiple difficult and complex cases, involving complex legal issues, expert testimony, and substantial amounts of time. Some of these cases have resulted in appeals that have been taken to the Supreme Court. While there are multiple published opinions where members of Burts Turner & Rhodes have handled the appeals, some of these court opinions have been recognized as being landmark cases that have significantly changed South Carolina’s jurisprudence. Examples of these opinions include:

Some of the significant reported cases handled by the attorneys of Burts Turner & Rhodes include:

  • Doe v. Queen, 347 S.C. 4, 552 S.E. 2d 761 (2001); 
    Ascott v. Bacon, 361 S.C. 44, 567 S.E. 2d 898 (Ct. App. 2002) Collectively, these two appeals changed the law in South Carolina to increase the rights of a biological father to his children.
  • Grant v. Grant Textiles, 372 S.C. 196, 641 S.E.2d 869 (2007); 
    This Workers’ Compensation appeal expanded the law in South Carolina in determining what constitutes “arising out of and in the course of employment.” As a result of this case, the Supreme Court made a ruling that certain actions of an employee will still be considered as being within the scope of employment, even though these actions were not intended to be part of an employee’s duties.
  • Michael Scott B. v. Melissa M.,378 S.C. 452, 663 S.E.2d 58 (2008) 
    In this appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that a biological mother, who was fighting to prevent her parental rights from being terminated and her children from being adopted, was entitled to an award of attorney fees from the adoptive parents, even though she was not the prevailing party.

Sign up for newsletter

Subscribe to our email newsletter for useful tips and valuable resources.