James G. Carpenter

Attorney in Greenville, SC
Author: "State Regulation of Religious Schools," Journal of Law and Education, Vol. 14 Number 2, April 1985. Law Clerk to Hon. Terrence W. Boyle USDJ, EDNC, 1984-1985. U.S. Attorney's Office, EDNC, 1985-1988.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.4 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Labor and Employment
  • Appellate Practice
  • Public Interest Litigation
  • Real Estate
  • Taxpayer Rights
  • Civil Litigation
  • Business Litigation


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

4.4 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials


Managing Partner

Admission Details

Admitted in 1985, South Carolina
1986, North Carolina

Law School Attended

University of South Carolina
Class of 1984

University Attended

Bob Jones University
Class of 1981
cum laude

Birth Information

Born in 1959
Hudson, Michigan, January 31, 1959

Associations & Memberships

Greenville County Bar Association; South Carolina Bar; North Carolina State Bar; Christian Legal Society; Federalist Society.

Representative Cases

American Petroleum Institute v. South Carolina Dept. of Revenue, 677 S.E.2d 16, S.C., May 04, 2009 (NO. 26645); Sloan v. Greenville County, 380 S.C. 528, 670 S.E.2d 663 (Ct. App. 2008); Sloan v. Department of Transp., 379 S.C. 160, 666 S.E.2d 236 (2008); South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v. Harrell, 378 S.C. 441, 663 S.E.2d 52 (2008); McShe... More

Contact Information






Send email to James G. Carpenter

Office Information
James G. Carpenter
Managing Partner
 819 E. North Street,
Greenville, SC 29601-3101


The Carpenter Law Firm, P.C. (Greenville, South Carolina)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.