An unpublished opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court reinstates an appeal of a defendant lawyer and law firm

Respondents commenced a civil action against Petitioners, an attorney and his law firm, asserting violations of the South Carolina Homeland Security Act (the Act) and theories of invasion of privacy, wrongful intrusion, and outrage for the use and disclosure of Respondents’ electronic communications that Petitioners were provided by their client. Petitioners moved to dismiss on the theory the common law attorney immunity doctrine barred the claims against them. See Gaar v. North Myrtle Beach Realty Co., Inc., 287 S.C. 525, 524, 339 S.E.2d 887, 889 (Ct. App. 1986) (“[A]n attorney is immune from liability to third persons arising from the performance of his professional activities as an attorney on behalf of and with the knowledge of the client.”). The circuit court dismissed all of the claims except the claim under the Act, finding the attorney immunity doctrine inapplicable to claims brought under the Act. The circuit court further directed that Petitioners could not “assert the attorney-immunity defense going forward.”

An appeal had been dismissed as interlocutory

we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, dispense with briefing, reverse the court of appeals’ order dismissing the appeal as interlocutory, and remand the matter to the court of appeals for consideration of the merits of the appeal.

(Mike Frisch)