Prominent Attorney Mark Tinsley Faces Serious Allegations of Media Manipulation in New Lawsuit

South Carolina attorney Mark Tinsley, who gained national recognition during the Alex Murdaugh case, now finds himself the target of a damaging lawsuit alleging deliberate media manipulation and the corruption of justice for personal gain.

The 23-page Complaint for Declaratory and Equitable Relief, filed November 3, 2025, in Horry County Common Pleas Court, accuses Tinsley of orchestrating a “media firestorm” to advance his own celebrity rather than serve justice. Plaintiff Weldon Boyd, represented by attorneys Desa Ballard, Harvey Watson, and Haley Hubbard of Ballard & Watson, alleges Tinsley “did not let the truth get in the way of a good story” in his pursuit of fame and influence.

At the center of the controversy is a September 2023 road-rage incident that ended in fatal gunfire. According to court documents, Scott Spivey, who had allegedly spent nearly five hours drinking, pursued Boyd’s vehicle while brandishing a .45-caliber handgun. Witnesses and 911 recordings reportedly confirm Spivey fired toward Boyd’s truck, prompting Boyd and a passenger to return fire in what they described as self-defense.

Multiple independent witnesses corroborated that Spivey was the aggressor, leading the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office to conclude in April 2024 that Boyd’s actions were justified. The case appeared closed.

However, the lawsuit claims Tinsley was later retained by Spivey’s family and transformed what should have been a resolved matter into a media spectacle for his personal benefit.

The complaint details how Tinsley allegedly provided private discovery material—including 911 calls, photos, and deposition footage—to news outlets such as The Sun News, WMBF, and The Wall Street Journal. Boyd’s legal team argues Tinsley deliberately fed non-public evidence to podcasters and reporters to “control the narrative” while elevating his own reputation.

The filing cites specific incidents of alleged media manipulation, including a March 14, 2025, article in The Sun News where Tinsley claimed to have “considerable information” that made the initial investigation “disappointing,” despite no new evidence being produced. On April 17, 2025, he allegedly told The Wall Street Journal there was “damning evidence” missed by investigators—statements the lawsuit characterizes as misleading.

The lawsuit further alleges Tinsley embraced and cultivated a celebrity persona, branding himself on social media as a “dragon slayer,” “media genius,” and “Tiger Tinsley.” It claims his actions were “intentional, willful, and designed to attract attention,” even when contradicting law enforcement findings that had cleared Boyd.

Beyond reputation damage, the complaint outlines tangible consequences of Tinsley’s alleged media campaign. In May 2025, nine South Carolina legislators wrote to Governor Henry McMaster urging him to reopen the Spivey case—an action Boyd’s attorneys attribute directly to the pressure created by Tinsley’s media narratives.

The lawsuit draws parallels to Tinsley’s earlier rise during the Alex Murdaugh trial, where he became a frequent cable news guest and podcast commentator. Boyd’s legal team argues this case represents a continuation of a pattern where “Tinsley has once again blurred the line between attorney and entertainer.”

Unlike most civil cases, Boyd’s lawsuit does not seek monetary damages. Instead, it requests a declaratory judgment—a legal finding that Tinsley’s conduct “perverted the course of justice” and made it impossible for Boyd to receive a fair trial in South Carolina courts. Boyd also seeks to have his legal costs covered and to establish a public record acknowledging Tinsley’s alleged misconduct.

The case potentially represents a significant test of legal ethics in the digital age, examining the boundaries of attorney conduct when legal advocacy intersects with media influence and personal brand-building. It raises fundamental questions about whether an attorney can ethically leverage fame and media connections while simultaneously shaping public opinion on active legal matters.

As of the filing, Tinsley has not publicly responded to the allegations.

The case, officially filed as “Weldon Boyd v. Mark B. Tinsley” (Case No. 2025-CP-26-08617) in the Court of Common Pleas, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Horry County, will be closely watched by legal professionals for its potential implications on attorney conduct standards in an increasingly media-driven justice system.