Gruber Sires v. Dorothy Pierce: Local Seneca Attorney Sued For Legal Malpractice
Lazy and incompetent lawyer sells out to throw Immigrant woman under the bus.
In a developing legal saga in Oconee County, South Carolina, Dorothy Pierce has successfully reinstated a legal malpractice claim against attorney N. Gruber Sires. The case, filed under Case No. 2023-CP-37-00548 in the Court of Common Pleas, Tenth Judicial Circuit, centers on allegations of professional negligence, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to Sires's representation of Pierce in a probate matter involving her late husband's estate.
Background of the Case
Dorothy Pierce, a resident of South Carolina, was married to Doyle Elton Pierce until his death on September 14, 2020, at Prisma Hospital in Oconee County. Prior to his passing, on July 7, 2020, Doyle executed his last will and testament in compliance with South Carolina Code § 62-2-502 (2017). The will was properly witnessed by two disinterested individuals.
Following Doyle's death, Pierce retained the Carol Johnson Law Firm, P.A., to probate the will. On September 23, 2020, she was legally appointed as the Personal Representative of Doyle's estate. However, the deceased's eldest son, Jared Adam Pierce, contested the validity of the will through his counsel, alleging forgery. The contest was supported by a handwriting expert who used signature exemplars dating from 1971 to 2008—decades prior to the execution of the 2020 will.
Advised to hire a probate litigation attorney, Pierce engaged attorney N. Gruber Sires, paying him a lump sum of $5,000 to represent her in probate court case number 2020ES3700532. Pierce alleges that Sires performed less than five tasks and spent fewer than five hours on her case, ultimately leading to the invalidation of her late husband's will.
Allegations Against Attorney Sires
Pierce's amended complaint outlines several instances of alleged malpractice and negligence by Sires, emphasizing eight separate breaches detailed in an Affidavit of Merit provided by legal malpractice expert, Mr. Bennett J. Wasserman, Esq.
Failure to Apply the Law Correctly: Sires allegedly ignored the outdated nature of the signature exemplars used by the opposing party's handwriting expert, which ranged from 1971 to 2008. These exemplars did not meet the "within the proximity" standard required for valid comparison in modern document examination. Pierce contends that Sires failed to challenge the admissibility of this evidence under the Daubert standard, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts and has been adopted by South Carolina courts.
Inadequate Investigation and Discovery: The complaint asserts that Sires did not perform a sufficient investigation into the facts of the case. Specifically, he neglected to obtain a draft of a will that the decedent had instructed his son, Jared, to prepare in May 2020, which closely mirrored the contested will. Pierce believes this draft would have substantiated the authenticity of the July 7, 2020, will.
Failure to Hire or Coordinate with Expert Witnesses: Despite Pierce's requests, Sires did not hire a handwriting expert to rebut the opposing party's expert. Pierce independently hired an expert who authenticated the signature on the will, but Sires allegedly failed to present this report to the court or coordinate with the expert witness.
Lack of Communication: Pierce accuses Sires of failing to communicate with her before, during, and after the probate hearing. She alleges that Sires did not return her calls or emails in the days leading up to the August 2, 2021, hearing and refused to discuss the case with her on the day of the hearing.
Inadequate Preparation for Trial: Sires is alleged to have neglected to prepare for the trial adequately. He did not prepare the witnesses who had signed the will, failed to cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses effectively, and did not object when Pierce was called to testify without prior notice.
Failure to Review or Object to Court Orders: After the probate court decided to invalidate the will, Sires did not review the draft order prepared by the opposing counsel with Pierce, nor did he object to its contents. The final order included harsher terms than initially proposed, including the impeachment of all witnesses and the removal of Pierce as the personal representative.
Concealment of Material Facts: The complaint alleges that Sires withheld critical evidence from the court, including text messages, affidavits, and reports from the Oconee County Sheriff's Department, which had closed an investigation into the alleged forgery without charging Pierce.
Unprofessional Conduct and Abandonment: Pierce contends that Sires abandoned her after the judgment, deleting correspondence and files related to her case, and failed to inform her of significant developments, such as a scheduled hearing to appoint a new personal representative for the estate.
Legal Proceedings and Reinstatement of Malpractice Claim
Pierce initially filed her complaint on July 20, 2023. On November 6, 2023, the court dismissed her legal malpractice claim due to non-compliance with South Carolina Code Ann. § 15-36-100, which requires an Affidavit of Merit from an expert in professional negligence cases at the time of filing.
Undeterred, Pierce obtained the required Affidavit of Merit from Mr. Wasserman on November 13, 2023, and filed a First Amended Complaint to reinstate her legal malpractice claim against Sires. The affidavit detailed the eight separate breaches of duty, reinforcing the allegations made in her complaint.
A hearing was held on March 14, 2024, before Judge McIntosh. After considering the new evidence and the Affidavit of Merit, Judge McIntosh ruled to reinstate the legal malpractice claim against Sires. This decision allows Pierce to proceed with her lawsuit, seeking actual and consequential damages, punitive damages, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Impact and Significance
The reinstatement of the legal malpractice claim is a significant development in Pierce's pursuit of justice. It underscores the critical role of attorneys in upholding professional standards and the legal avenues available to clients when those standards are not met.
Pierce alleges that Sires's actions—or lack thereof—not only led to the loss of her husband's will but also caused severe emotional distress, financial losses, and damage to her reputation. She continues to face legal fees and humiliation stemming from the invalidation of the will.
Key Dates and Events
July 7, 2020: Execution of the last will and testament of Doyle Elton Pierce.
September 14, 2020: Death of Doyle Elton Pierce.
September 23, 2020: Dorothy Pierce appointed as Personal Representative of the estate.
August 2, 2021: Probate court hearing where Sires allegedly failed to represent Pierce effectively.
August 18, 2021: Probate court ruled to set aside the will.
July 20, 2023: Pierce filed the initial complaint against Sires.
November 6, 2023: Court dismissed the legal malpractice claim due to lack of an Affidavit of Merit.
November 13, 2023: Pierce obtained the Affidavit of Merit from Mr. Wasserman and filed a First Amended Complaint.
March 14, 2024: Hearing held before Judge McIntosh, who reinstated the legal malpractice claim against Sires.
Conclusion
The allegations against attorney N. Gruber Sires highlight serious concerns about professional responsibility and ethical conduct within the legal profession. The case emphasizes the importance of thorough preparation, effective communication, and adherence to legal standards in representing clients.
As the lawsuit proceeds, it will serve as a critical examination of the duties attorneys owe to their clients and the consequences of failing to meet those obligations. The outcome may have broader implications for legal malpractice standards in South Carolina and reinforce the necessity for attorneys to diligently uphold their professional responsibilities.
Pending Litigation
It is important to note that the claims against Sires are allegations at this stage. The court has not made a final determination regarding the merits of Pierce's claims. Both parties will have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments as the case moves forward.
About the Parties
Dorothy Pierce: A resident of South Carolina, proceeding pro se in her lawsuit against Sires. She was the wife of the late Doyle Elton Pierce and served as the Personal Representative of his estate until the will was set aside.
N. Gruber Sires: An attorney licensed to practice law in South Carolina. He resides in Oconee County and was retained by Pierce to litigate the probate case involving her late husband's estate.
Legal Representation
While Dorothy Pierce is representing herself in this matter, Sires is expected to be represented by counsel as the legal proceedings continue.
Next Steps
The reinstated legal malpractice claim will proceed in the Court of Common Pleas, Tenth Judicial Circuit. A trial date has not yet been set. Observers and legal professionals will be watching closely as the case may set precedents regarding attorney conduct and malpractice claims in the state.
This article is based on publicly available court documents and allegations made by the plaintiff. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.