|We believe that paying for our services should not be more stressful than the problem we are hired to resolve. Whenever possible, we charge a flat fee for our work. In other circumstances (particularly personal injury and car accident cases), we pursue the action via a contingency agreement. We do not recover payment unless you do.|
Our firm is a general practice and we are prepared to assist you in most common legal issues. We appear regularly in the Magistrate, Probate, Family, and Circuit Courts of this state and before the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Our attorneys have particular experience in the following areas:
We have years of experience handling probate estates (standard to complex) and contested probate cases.
Mr. Luck has regularly appeared before the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the South Carolina Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court on behalf of both civil and criminal clients.
We are ready to assist you with the Business and Estate Planning solutions to simplify your life and provide peace of mind against complications in the future.
Mr. Luck has over a decade of experience representing homeowners and contractors in construction defect disputes, from small renovations to multi-million dollar condominium defect litigation.
If you have been arrested or are otherwise caught up in the criminal justice system (either pre-trial or post-trial) contact us to have a consultation regarding the particulars of your case.
Mr. Luck represents individuals and businesses to protect their creative works via copyright. He also assists businesses and individuals in registering and protecting their trademarks and service marks.
Personal injuries can dramatically change your life and your business. If you have been injured at home, on the job, or on the roadway, our experienced attorneys can assist you with your claim.
Our firm has represented generations of community members in personal and sensitive affairs including divorce as well as changes in child custody and support.
Gordon Garrett is a general practitioner, experienced trial attorney, and partner at Garrett Law Offices, LLC. After being admitted to the bar in 2005, Mr. Garrett earned an L.L.M. in Taxation from Georgetown University and spent two years practicing international taxation in Europe. He returned to Park Circle in 2010.
Jason Scott Luck is a partner at Garrett Law Offices. He is a seasoned trial attorney and litigator who has represented clients at every level of South Carolina state and federal court, including the United States Supreme Court. While he is a general practitioner who represents clients from cradle to grave, his primary areas of practice are construction litigation, intellectual property, and appellate advocacy.
After graduating The Citadel with a B.S. in Commerce, Gordon Henderson Garrett spent 3 years in the Army, where - by 1962 - he had achieved the rank of Captain.
Yates v. Terry, 817 F.3d 877 (4th Cir. 2016).
A civil rights action (42 U.S.C. § 1983) brought by a Afghanistan War veteran against an officer of the North Charleston Police Department for excessive force during an arrest.
Messrs. Garrett and Luck represented the veteran, who was tased repeatedly in view of his family during a traffic stop. A favorable ruling for the veteran client required review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a well-cited opinion that has helped define the parameters of police taser use and use of force generally.
The case was settled three days before trial for $380,000.00.
Article from The Post and Courier.
Read the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion. [PDF]
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals oral arguments. [mp3 audio]
State v. Perez, Op. No. 2015-UP-217 (S.C.Ct.App. filed May 8, 2015). cert. granted, No. 2015-001576 (S.C.Sup.Ct. dated June 16, 2016).
An appeal of a conviction for Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature and other crimes.
Mr. Luck represents the defendant. The primary grounds for appeal are: (1) the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Wallace, 683 S.E.2d 275 (S.C. 2009) is incorrect and should be overturned; (2) the trial court improperly admitted “prior bad acts” under Rule 404(b), SCRE; (3) the trial court improperly excluded cross-examination regarding a witness’s U-Visa under Rule 608, SCRE; and (4) that sentencing was vindictive.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Luck’s client’s sentence; the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 30, 2016 and its decision is pending.
Article from The Post and Courier.
Read the South Carolina Court of Appeals’ opinion. [PDF]
Footage of the South Carolina Supreme Court oral arguments. [mp4 video]
Ashley II of Charleston, LLC v. PCS Nitrogen, Inc., 791 F. Supp.2d 431 (D.S.C. 2011), aff’d, 714 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 514 (U.S. 2013).
A private recovery action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“Superfund”).
Mr. Luck represented a landowner subject to liability because it once owned a portion of the site in question. This complex action, involving roughly eleven parties and many talented attorneys, was tried over four weeks in the United States District Court, where Mr. Luck obtained a favorable result for his client. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The United States Supreme Court declined to review the Fourth Circuit, allowing its decision to stand.
Read the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. [PDF]
Charleston County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Marccuci, 721 S.E.2d 768 (S.C. 2011).
A termination of parental rights action. Mr. Luck represented the father, who had his child wrongfully taken by the Charleston County Department of Social Services.
After years of litigation in the Family Court, DSS sought to terminate the father's parental rights. While Mr. Luck did not prevail at trial, he appealed directly to the South Carolina Supreme Court, who, in a strongly-worded opinion, returned custody of the minor child to Mr. Luck's client. This opinion is cited frequently in termination of parental rights actions for its clarification of certain grounds for termination.
Mr. Luck's years of representation were provided without compensation, and in recognition of his work the South Carolina Bar named him Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year in 2012.
Read the South Carolina Supreme Court's opinion. [PDF]
Poch v. Bayshore Concrete, 747 S.E.2d 757 (S.C. 2013).
An appeal of a summary judgment order dismissing a wrongful death case.
Two workers from a temporary agency were buried alive in a ditch used for casting concrete. Mr. Luck was one of the attorneys who represented the wrongful death plaintiff. Mr. Luck and his co-counsel advanced a new test for when a corporate parent may claim the “statutory employer” status of a subsidiary, and the South Carolina Supreme Court adopted this new test as part of the law of Workers' Compensation in South Carolina.
Read the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision. [PDF]
Too Tacky P’ship v. S.C. Dep’t of Health and Envtl Control, 686 S.E.2d 194 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009). cert. dismissed as improvidently granted Op. No. 27198 (S.C. Sup.Ct. filed Dec. 5, 2012).
An appeal of an OCRM critical area permit for a joint-use dock.
Newton v. Muir, 2012 WL 8465997 (S.C.Com.Pl. dated Sept. 27, 2012).
A construction defect action brought by a homeowner against the builder and his subcontractors.
Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Estate of McKnight, 2010 WL 9520762 (S.C.Com.Pl. dated July 6, 2010).
A complex contested residential mortgage foreclosure with multiple parties, including two estates.
In re Houston, 675 S.E.2d 721 (S.C. 2009).
An attorney discipline matter.
United States v. Prytz, 822 F.Supp. 311 (D.S.C. 1993), aff’d, 35 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1995).
The defense of a defendant accused of obtaining sexually explicit materials via the U.S. Mail.
Sunamerica Fin. Corp. v. Equi-Data, 383 S.E.2d 8 (S.C. Ct. App. 1989).
An appeal of a business dispute implicating the waiver of the right to a jury trial.
Brown v. Cohen, 297 F.Supp. 29 (W.D.S.C. 1969).
An appeal of a denial of disability insurance benefits.