-- of
Click here to see a list of stop words.
119th Session, 2011-2012 Journal of the House of Representatives
(Local Session)
The House assembled at 10:00 a.m.
Our thought for today is from Psalm 13:6: "I will sing to the Lord, because he has dealt bountifully with me." After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
The following was received:
Report of Candidate Qualifications for Spring 2011
Date Draft Report Issued: Thursday, May 5, 2011
seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, May 10, 2011, at Noon.
May 5, 2011
Sincerely,
Dear Fellow Members:
Sincerely,
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law that went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.
While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact a candidate's fitness for judicial service.
Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Fourth Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Brigman meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Brigman was born in 1961. She is 50 years old and a resident of Darlington, South Carolina. Judge Brigman provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Brigman. Judge Brigman demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Brigman reported that she has made the following campaign expenditures: $303.00 for a name badge, palm cards, and postage. The Commission's investigation of Judge Brigman did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Brigman did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Brigman has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Brigman was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
Judge Brigman reported that her rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, is 2.9.
Judge Brigman appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Judge Brigman appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Judge Brigman was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986. She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: From August 1986 until May 1990, I practiced as an associate with Greene, Lockemy and Bailey in Dillon, South Carolina. My responsibilities involved family court litigation, civil litigation primarily representing plaintiffs in personal injury actions and limited criminal defense. I also performed residential real estate closings. From May 1990 until May 2004, I practiced as an associate with D. Kenneth Baker, P.A. in Darlington, South Carolina. My responsibilities involved family court litigation, civil litigation primarily representing plaintiffs in personal injury actions, and residential real estate closings. I also handled cases in the probate court. In March 2004, I was appointed to fill a position as a part-time Magistrate for Darlington County. I still hold this position and have been serving as Chief Magistrate for Darlington County since 2004. From May 2004 until November 2009, I practiced as an associate with McDougall and Self, L.L.P. in Florence, South Carolina. My practice was limited to family court litigation. From November 2009 until present, I have practiced with the Jebaily Law Firm, P.A. in Florence, South Carolina. My practice is limited to family court litigation. In June 2010, I became a part-time attorney for the Clarendon County Guardian ad Litem program. I represent lay guardians in matters involving the Department of Social Services. Judge Brigman further reported: My professional practice as an attorney has been limited to family court litigation for the last seven years. I have tried divorce, equitable division of property, child custody, adoption, abuse and neglect and juvenile cases during that time. I have not only tried cases but have participated in mediations and settlement negotiations on behalf of clients involved in family court actions. I have also served as a part-time Magistrate for the last seven years. Both my private practice and my service as a magistrate have prepared me to preside over cases in family court.
Judge Brigman reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her service on the bench as follows:
Judge Brigman reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her service on the bench as follows:
Judge Brigman reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her service on the bench as follows: Judge Brigman provided that prior to her service on the bench she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Brigman's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
The Defendant also claimed my client should pay her attorney fees. Based on the testimony at trial, the court determined each party should pay their own fees. There were numerous instances of unwanted and intrusive contact which the Defendant denied. Through testimony and the introduction of various exhibits the restraining order on numerous occasions, despite his adamant denials. The Court found the Defendant to be in contempt of the prior order. Judge Brigman reported that she has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals. Judge Brigman reported that she has held the following judicial office: March 2004 to present - appointed to serve as part-time Magistrate for Darlington County. In 2004, I was appointed to serve as Chief Magistrate and still hold that position. I preside over Criminal Domestic Violence Court, civil matters in which the amount in controversy does not exceed $7,500.00, and criminal matters that fall within the Magistrate's Court jurisdiction. I also preside over all the jury trials held in the Hartsville area of Darlington County and conduct bond hearings. Judge Brigman reported the following regarding her employment while serving as a judge: From May 1990 until May 2004, I practiced as an associate with D. Kenneth Baker, P.A. in Darlington, South Carolina. My responsibilities involved family court litigation, civil litigation primarily representing plaintiffs in personal injury actions, and residential real estate closings. I also handled cases in the probate court. In March 2004, I was appointed to fill a position as a part-time Magistrate for Darlington County. I still hold this position and have been serving as Chief Magistrate for Darlington County since 2004. From May 2004 until November 2009, I practiced as an associate with McDougall and Self, L.L.P. in Florence, South Carolina. My practice was limited to family court litigation. From November 2009 until present, I have practiced with the Jebaily Law Firm, P.A. in Florence, South Carolina. My practice is limited to family Court litigation.
In June 2010, I became a part-time attorney for the Clarendon County Guardian ad Litem program. I represent lay guardians in matters involving the Department of Social Services.
The Commission believes that Judge Brigman's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizens Committee found Judge Brigman "Well qualified" in terms of ethical fitness, professional and academic responsibility, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee found Judge Brigman "Qualified" in terms of constitutional qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee stated in its summary, "Judge Brigman is an excellent candidate for this position." Judge Brigman is married to Gregory W. Brigman. She has two children.
Judge Brigman reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Past Member, House of Delegates
Past Member, Board of Governors;
Past Chairman, Family Law Section; Judge Brigman further reported:
"For the last several years, my practice has been devoted exclusively to the practice of family law. I have tried to increase my professional skills by attending educational family law seminars and by speaking at these seminars. My service as a Magistrate has taught me the importance of exercising patience, understanding and restraint with both litigants and lawyers. I believe I have the ability and temperament needed to serve on the Family Court bench."
The Commission commented that Judge Brigman has a wealth of experience as a family law practitioner. They noted that her excellent temperament and demeanor would serve her well on the Family Court bench. The Commission found Judge Brigman qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2.
Fourth Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge McIntyre meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge McIntyre was born in 1969. She is 42 years old and a resident of Dillon, South Carolina. Judge McIntyre provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1995. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge McIntyre. Judge McIntyre demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge McIntyre reported that she has made $49.65 in campaign expenditures for nametags, candidacy cards, and postage.
Judge McIntyre testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
The Commission found Judge McIntyre to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge McIntyre reported that she has not published any books and/or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge McIntyre did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge McIntyre did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge McIntyre has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge McIntyre was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry. Judge McIntyre reported the following regarding her rating by a legal rating organization: "When I first joined the firm of Greene and Bailey, P.A., my rating with Martindale-Hubbell was a BV. Practicing in the Fourth Circuit, I have never seen much need in pursuing a more distinguished rating." Judge McIntyre reported that she has held the following public office: I was elected to serve as the Mayor of the City of Dillon from May 1999 until May 2003. I did not seek a second term. Reports were timely filed with the State Ethics Commission.
I am serving as the Associate Probate Judge for Dillon County and have been since July 2009. I am not required to file with the State Ethics Commission.
Judge McIntyre appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Judge McIntyre appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Judge McIntyre was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1995. She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: Upon graduating from law school, I clerked for the Honorable James E. Lockemy from August 1995 until June 1996. In June 1996, I became an Associate at the firm of Greene & Bailey, P.A. in Dillon, SC. In June of 1998, A. Glenn Greene, Jr. and I formed Greene & Huggins, P.A. where I am currently practicing. Since joining the firm of Greene & Bailey, P.A., (now Greene & Huggins, P.A.), I have maintained a general practice in the areas of domestic, real estate, personal injury and probate. As the years have passed, my real estate and domestic work have increased substantially, and I have had less work in the area of personal injury. I have also served as attorney for the Dillon County Guardian ad Litem program since 1998. My work with the program was all volunteer until contracts were offered in 2009. The pay is very nominal compared to the amount of time involved in and out of court. Practicing in a rural area, I have to have a general practice to service most of the community with its needs. Over the past few years, the economy has changed the time my firm has devoted to the different areas of law. In June of 2009, the Dillon County Probate Judge passed away after a brief illness. I was asked to serve as the Associate Probate Judge. The Clerk of Court for Dillon County was the Acting Probate Judge handling all of the personnel matters and my role was to hear all matters and answer all legal questions. I served as the Associate Probate Judge for Dillon County until January 4, 2011, when the newly elected Probate Judge took office. Since the newly elected Probate Judge took office, I have served as the Associate Probate Judge pro bono. I have agreed to do this for a six month period to assist the newly elected Probate Judge make her transition successful. Judge McIntyre further reported: I have been involved in nearly all aspects of South Carolina Family Court. I have represented clients in divorce, alimony and equitable division of property cases, the overwhelming majority of which involved child custody. I have served as attorney for the Dillon County Guardian ad Litem program since 1998, with 10 years of that being on a strictly volunteer basis. I have handled numerous adoption cases, and I have handled those juvenile cases to which I have been appointed. I feel that my seasoned experience in these areas duly qualifies me to be a successful Family Court Judge. Divorce -- I have handled cases on all grounds of divorce, fault and no-fault, contested and uncontested. I have also represented parties in the determination of common law marriage and defended parties on the grounds of condonation, reconciliation and recrimination. In a majority of these cases, litigation involved valuation of property, including but not limited to real estate, business, retirement, profit sharing plans and the like. I have also had to prepare numerous Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. On the flip side of the assets cases, I have also had to litigate cases where parties were not very wealthy and were about to lose everything or possibly their marital money was tied up in a home owned by the "in-laws", and other individuals had to be added as parties to the action. Alimony -- I have represented individuals in divorces when they were defending against alimony, seeking a reduction of alimony or attempting to receive an award of alimony. In a few cases, I had to seek to uncover additional assets to prove that the other party was able to pay alimony because they were hiding assets or understating the value or the income production of assets. Child Custody and Support -- I have been involved in numerous custody and support cases during my practice. Some parties were married and some were not. I have also represented Grandparents in seeking custody with their own child as the Defendant. I have served as the Guardian ad Litem in many private actions. I try not to have more than five pending private custody actions at a time. These type cases are very demanding, and in a small town, you get called upon frequently to serve. I have also handled cases regarding the psychological parent and the intentional alienation of children against one parent. I have negotiated many child support cases, including but not limited to deviation from the guidelines, imputed wages and income from second and third jobs that were revealed during discovery. Adoption -- I have been the moving party, the defending party and the Guardian ad Litem in adoptions. Since I serve as the Attorney for the Dillon County Guardian ad Litem program, I am typically asked to serve as the Guardian during the adoption. I have also represented grandparents, siblings and stepparents in adoptions. Abuse and Neglect -- As the attorney for the Dillon County Guardian ad Litem Program, I am involved in almost all of the Abuse and Neglect cases in Dillon, unless my office has a conflict, which is quite rare. DSS court is held on average two days a month in Dillon with 10 to 12 cases being heard per day. As the attorney for the Guardian ad Litem I have to handle daily questions involving the minor children. The Guardian coordinator has unlimited access to me any time of the day and any time of the week.
Juveniles -- Occasionally, I am appointed to serve as the attorney for Juveniles or as their Guardian ad Litem. Because of my representation of the Guardian ad Litem program, I get called upon only once or twice a year.
(a) federal: None Judge McIntyre provided that prior to her service on the bench, she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge McIntyre's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
I debated about adding this as one of my most significant litigated cases but decided that this is a case for the Guardians ad Litem in South Carolina that struggle with their court-ordered duties and this is one of the cases that helped me decide to run for this position. I was appointed as the Guardian in this private action after the Temporary Hearing where the Mother (Moreno) lost custody to the Father (Abraham). Father and Mother were never married. Father was under a court-order to pay child support but there was never an order for custody. This case was active for over one year. I visited with the child numerous times over the course of this case. I went to her home where she lived in Rock Hill in October of 2008 and visited with her, her teachers, her Father and Stepmother. I left all of my numbers for school personnel and teachers to contact me if they needed me for any reason. I explained who I was and what my role was. I visited with the minor child in Marion County during Thanksgiving of 2008. The hearing was set for the first part of December. I did not speak with the child between Thanksgiving and the first day of trial. The trial started in December and continued until a day in February. After the Judge ruled on this case, it was discovered that a DSS investigation was pending in York County for allegations of abuse, and was first opened after Thanksgiving but before the trial started in December. When I first heard about the DSS investigation, I became very alarmed and was unable to get much more of an answer other than the case was an Unfounded Category II. I immediately filed a Motion to Reopen the case so that I could continue to investigate. The motion was granted and eventually another hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court left the child with her Father but ruled that the Stepmother could not administer any corporal punishment to the minor child. This case is significant because I had technically been relieved as the Guardian but because we are charged with a duty to serve the best interest of the child, I felt that I could not ignore this allegation, and thankfully I did not. Re-opening this case has provided more protection for this minor child and has certainly made DSS more aware of the issues surrounding her environment. This was a great case of psychological parent. I represented the Defendant, Angela Lampley, who was given a child by the mother (Jarece Lampley), my client's cousin. The maternal grandmother, Shirley Johnson, filed this action a month before her daughter (Jarece) was murdered. The daughter's boyfriend is still incarcerated pending charges for her murder. A month before filing this action, the Grandmother, Mother and boyfriend came to Dillon in an attempt to pick the child up and take her back to New Jersey. Since the child had lived in South Carolina for over six months, I advised my client to not let the child leave. Subsequently, the Grandmother filed this action, naming my client and the Mother as defendants. This case continued on over the course of 2 ½ years. My client received numerous threatening phone calls from the home number of the Grandmother and from cell numbers in New York where the Grandmother lived. Some of these threats were recorded and were played back at a second temporary hearing and at the final hearing. On one particular exchange, the Grandmother's other daughter appeared and threatened my client and her family to the point my client feared for her safety. The Grandmother obtained a New Jersey order giving her custody of this minor child along with two other children of the deceased mother, after she had filed the action is South Carolina seeking custody of this child. With that New Jersey court order, she was able to obtain social security benefits for the minor child even though she did not have custody of the child. My client was unaware for some period of time that she was receiving these benefits. The Grandmother refused to produce documents and comply with discovery which caused delays in the final hearing. The Grandmother made numerous calls to DSS in South Carolina and at least one report in New York in an attempt to gain custody. We requested a psychological of the Grandmother. The Grandmother's psychological revealed that her morals may be compromised. The Judge found that the Grandmother and her family had frustrated visitations. The Grandmother admitted on cross examination that if she was awarded custody that she would not foster a relationship between the minor child and my client despite the fact that this child had lived with my client for almost 3 ½ years. The Judge was disturbed by this and ruled that it was not in the best interest of the child for the Grandmother to be awarded custody.
Although my client won custody, the Court did not grant termination of parental rights and adoption, despite the fact that the grounds were there. Instead the Court ruled that this case was clearly an issue of custody and not termination of parental rights and adoption; therefore, the termination of parental rights and adoption were denied. This is a case that was initiated with a safety plan placing four (4) minor children with the maternal grandfather and his wife ("maternal grandparents"). The maternal grandparents hired an attorney and filed a private action for custody of all four children. DSS filed an action after the private action was filed and the maternal grandparents moved to intervene. The two cases were consolidated under the DSS action. I was appointed as the Guardian ad Litem to replace the Guardian that was appointed in the private action. There were three (3) different fathers in this action. At the initial hearing, two children went to live with their father in York County, the youngest child went to live with the paternal grandparents and the oldest child went to live with the maternal grandparents. The condition of the paternal grandparents receiving custody of the youngest child was that the father, Caulder, was not to live in the home nor could he move back into the home. The paternal grandparents stated at the hearing that Caulder had already moved out and would not be returning. I made a surprise visit to the paternal grandparents' home after obtaining clarification from the Court that if I found that Caulder was living in the home that all I had to do was submit an affidavit to the Court and the child would immediately be removed by DSS. Upon arriving at the home, I was told three conflicting stories about Caulder living there. It was undisputed that he had been living there since the hearing and in fact was living there at the time of the hearing, but the question of "how long" he remained in the home after the hearing was the only discrepancy. I immediately submitted an affidavit to the Court, and the child was removed and placed with the maternal grandparents. After much questioning of these children, it was revealed that the oldest three children had been severely abused and tortured by Caulder with the mother's knowledge. The paternal grandparents refused to acknowledge that the abuse was occurring. The youngest child, Caulder's only biological child, was not abused. At the review hearing, the paternal grandparents of the youngest child filed a motion to intervene which was denied. After numerous interviews with the children, the solicitor's office was able to indict Caulder on three counts of Unlawful Neglect of a Child and the mother with one count. The mother pled guilty and Caulder was convicted after a three day trial. The mother received 10 years and Caulder received 10 years consecutive on each of the charges.
Since the end of the DSS action, the two middle children that were living with their father have returned to the maternal grandparents. I served as the Guardian ad Litem in this private action when the maternal grandparents were awarded custody. The maternal grandparents have adopted both the oldest child and youngest child. They are in the process of adopting the two middle children. Of all the cases I have tried, this was the most emotional and by far the most rewarding!
This case is significant because it involves the Tobacco Settlement. I chose this case because when my client walked in all she could say was that she wanted her children and out of her marriage. She believed there was no money to fight over. By the end of this case, we had four attorneys involved (2 on each side) and we had hired an expert from the University of South Carolina to testify in regards to the Tobacco Settlement. Needless to say, this was the first time this "expert" had ever testified. She had been studying the buyout but had never been called to testify in a divorce hearing. During Discovery, we were able to determine that Mr. Moore was the owner of some of the farms in question and also listed as the grower of these and other farms along with his father. The payout was based on grower and owner. My client received yearly payouts from her husband's portion of the proceeds for over five years. In addition to the tobacco issue, we had crops, livestock and equipment to value. My client had very little upfront money to hire an investigator so much of the investigation was left up to me and my client. Counting moving cows is really hard to do. Ultimately, we videoed the cows owned by the husband as our number was much higher than his. When we were finally able to settle the case, we also settled issues about who was to pay what portion of their daughter's upcoming wedding. It was a very long and time consuming case but I was so happy to see my client get what she, by law, was entitled to receive. This is a case that I became involved in after the temporary hearing. I represented the Mother. There were two minor children and very little assets to fight over. We had two temporary hearings in this matter because of the Father encouraging his daughters to misbehave to the extent that they could have been arrested or killed. The Father told the 13 year old daughter to take her Mother's car and drive to Dillon. At the time that she took the car it was approximately 5 am. The child was on Daniel Island and had her younger sister in the car with her. The Father instructed her to drive for almost two hours before he met them and picked them up, leaving the Mother's car abandoned. Needless to say, "someone" broke into her car. The Father did not contact anyone until almost 10 am the next morning to let anyone know that he had the children in Dillon. It was late that afternoon before he took the children to the Dillon County Sheriff's Department and he only took them then because I just happened to pull up behind him in the car. The Father called law enforcement on two different occasions to have the Mother's car searched for drugs while the children were present and watching. The first search revealed nothing. The second search revealed crack cocaine and marijuana. Much to the Father's surprise, we anticipated this second search and had already contacted the Dillon County Sheriff's Department to have the narcotics dog search the car upon arrival at the exchange place. No charges were filed against the Mother because the person that the Father had hired to plant the drugs the first time was a confidential informant for law enforcement and he had spilled the beans. The second time he planted the drugs himself and had the minor children in the car with him and he thought they were asleep but they saw everything and they eventually talked.
The Father made several unfounded reports to DSS. As a result of the psychological trauma to the children, all visitations between the children and their Father must be supervised. Despite Father's allegations of Mother's alleged drug use, Mother has successfully passed all random drug tests and Father has failed two random drug tests. This case is significant because the father has made every attempt to alienate the children's relationship with their Mother which has ultimately cost him his relationship with them. Although this case was resolved in 2009, the Father has recently retained another attorney, through legal services, to reduce child support and to attempt to obtain more visitation.
I served as the Associate Probate Judge for Dillon County from July 2009 until January 4, 2011, with pay. I am currently serving as the Dillon County Associate Probate Judge pro bono for six months. My job responsibilities are to hear all matters before the Probate Court. I also assist the office staff in opening and closing estates and serving the public. I have presided over hearings involving minor settlements, appointment of conservators and guardians, common law marriage, removal of personal representatives and conservators. There were some occasions that wills and trust had to be interpreted. I agreed to continue to serve on a pro bono basis to assist the newly elected Probate Judge in making a successful transition into her position.
I was found qualified and nominated in the Spring 2009 election, for the Fourth Circuit Family Court, Seat 3. I withdrew as a candidate prior to the election.
The Commission believes that Judge McIntyre's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge McIntyre to be "Qualified" for the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee found Judge McIntyre to be "Well qualified" for the following criteria: ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary, "Judge McIntyre is an excellent candidate for this position."
Judge McIntyre is married to Frederick Martin "Marty" McIntyre. She has four children. 2001 - 02, President; President Elect; Program Chair
Multiple Paul Harris Fellow; Sustaining Paul Harris Fellow;
Chairman 2010 - present;
Board Member, 2010 - present;
2007 - 08, member; 2008 - 09, Chairman;
2008 - 09, member;
1996 - present;
2008 - present;
2008 - 09, member; Chairman, Endowment Fund, 2011
Chairman, Board of Trustees, 2003. Judge McIntyre additionally reported: I have always been a very hard worker from a very young age. I was blessed with two loving, hard-working parents who taught me to have strong morals, character and value. I lost my father to cancer when I was 20 years old and just beginning my junior year in college. My father always taught me that money would never buy happiness and that giving and doing for others would make you a more fulfilled person. I never went into the practice of law for the money. Fortunately, I have been able to make a good living to help support my family through my legal career while helping others in my small rural town. I have served my community and the children in my community for many years and have maintained a well-balanced career and home life. My Guardian work has been the most fulfilling. Knowing that I, along with the hard work of my office staff, have made a difference in children's lives is very rewarding. I am very passionate about my cases. I feel that I can carry this positive influence and energy over to the bench and continue to help children and families in South Carolina. My husband is a high school math teacher and football coach. We see every day that the children of our community are our future. I have on so many occasions seen him leave the house early to pick up "the boys" for practice or run them home after practice. Many times I have seen him and other coaches take money out of their pockets to help these children who come from single-parent homes or who are being raised by a relative. Our home has been open to so many children who have been less fortunate than us as either athletes that played for my husband or friends of my children. Most importantly, I have seen firsthand, the lives that these children who are a part of our system live.
Unfortunately in Dillon County, we have seen a rise in the Department of Social Service cases with the decline of the economy. I feel that I have the ability from my experience with children, with parents and from being a public servant to understand and assist these families achieve what they need to achieve in order to be reunited with their families and be successful. My experience serving as the attorney for the Guardian ad Litem program in Dillon County over the past 15 years has helped me see firsthand the devastating home lives of these children. My experience serving as the Dillon County Associate Probate Judge has helped me to gain more insight in dealing with individuals in very emotional times. I have learned how to effectively communicate with litigants in situations where emotions and tempers are high. I feel that I have developed a good mix of humor, civility and compassion when dealing with the public. All these are traits that a judge should possess.
The Commission commented that Judge McIntyre is very knowledgeable and experienced in the area of family law. They noted that her pro bono work as the attorney for the Dillon County Guardian Ad Litem Program would equip her well in serving on the Family Court bench. The Commission found Judge McIntyre qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2.
Fourth Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Stanton meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
I have presented a program to the retirees on Wills, Powers of Attorney, Health Care Powers of Attorney, Living Wills, Trusts, and Other Estate Planning Matters on 7/14/1998, 7/20/2000, 6/20/2002, 6/17/2004, and 6/19/2008. Dates: 1979-94 Served as Chairman: 1989-91
Served as Vice-Chairman: 1981-89; Dates: 1995-98 Served as Chairman: 1997-98
Served as Vice-Chairman: 1997.
Mr. Stanton appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Stanton appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Stanton was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974. In August of 1974, after I finished Law School and after I took the S.C. Bar Examination, I became an Associate with the Law Firm of Shand and Lide in Hartsville, S.C. (comprised of Robert W. Shand and Vinton D. Lide). In October of 1974 I had to attend my U.S. Army Officer Basic Course (ADT) in Fort Bliss, Texas, until February of 1975, at which time I was placed in the U.S. Army Inactive Reserve. In February of 1975 I resumed my Associate Position with Shand and Lide. This law practice was a "general practice" which included (1) Family Court Matters, (2) Real Estate, (3) Wills, Powers of Attorneys and Trusts, (4) Estate Planning, (5) Probate and Estates, (6) Criminal Defense, (7) Business Law (corporations and partnerships), (8) Debt Collection, and (9) Personal Injury. I continued as an Associate with Shand and Lide until January 1, 1976 when I was made a Partner and the Law Firm's name was changed to Shand, Lide, & Stanton. We continued to practice the same areas of law. Sometime in 1978, Mr. Vinton D. Lide withdrew from The Law Firm and relocated to the Columbia, S.C., area. Mr. Shand and I continued in the practice of law under the name of Shand & Stanton. We continued to practice the same areas of law. Sometime in 1980, Robert W. Shand retired from the active practice of law, and I continued the Law Firm under the name of Shand and Stanton (with Mr. Shand being "of counsel"). I continued to practice the same areas of law. On January 1, 1985, I made Mr. Jamie Lee Murdock, Jr. (an Associate of my Law Firm) a Partner, and Mr. Murdock and I began to practice law under the name of Shand, Stanton, and Murdock. We continued to practice the same areas of law. This continued until May 1, 1992, when Mr. Murdock was elected to a Family Court Judgeship (Seat 2 of the Fourth Judicial Circuit). Upon the departure of Mr. Murdock, I continued my law practice under my prior solo Law Firm name of Shand and Stanton. I continued to practice the same areas of law. On October 1, 1992, I brought in two other attorneys, Mr. J. Richard Jones and Mr. Karl H. Smith, as Partners, and we began to practice law under the name of Stanton, Jones & Smith. We continued to practice the same areas of law. In the spring of 1997, Mr. Smith withdrew from the Law Firm, but Mr. Jones and I continued to practice law under the name of Stanton & Jones. We continued to practice the same areas of law. Effective December 31, 2008, Mr. Jones withdrew from the Law Firm to become a "Fulltime Public Defender," and I have continued my law practice under the name of Stanton Law Firm. I continue to practice the same areas of law.
My entire practice of law has always been at the same address of 954 West Carolina Avenue, Hartsville, South Carolina.
My practice for the past thirty-six years has always included a substantial portion of family law cases, including numerous divorces, numerous cases involving the issues of spousal support (alimony), along with equitable division of property, child custody and child support. I have also handled several adoption cases. I have been involved either as the Attorney or Court Appointed Guardian ad Litem in many Department of Social Services abuse and neglect cases. In addition, I have been involved in the representation of juveniles in Family Court proceedings.
I represented the wife and this is a case which involved both of these issues. It also involves the issues of Child Custody, Visitation, and Child Support. This case has been very contested by both parties and a Temporary Hearing has been held and a Guardian Ad Litem has been actively involved in this case. In an attempt to resolve the issues in this case, the parties, their Attorneys, and the Guardian Ad Litem have met in an "informal mediation setting" and it is hoped that the effort will resolve the case. However, if not so resolved, then all of the issues will be submitted to the Court for decision.
I represented the husband in this case. This case involved both of these issues, together with Alimony, Child Custody, Child Support, Visitation, and Exclusion of Non-Marital Property. The husband's Private Detective had produced evidence of the wife's adultery. This case was very complicated and several Hearings were held in this case. A four-day Final Hearing was scheduled but prior to the Final Hearing, the parties reached a detailed written Agreement which provided for Joint Custody, the husband being granted the sole ownership of the former marital residence, a bar to Alimony to the wife, a division of personal property between the parties (which included the husband being the sole owner of some non-marital property - the pre-marital value of his Retirement Account). At the shortened Final Hearing, the Court approved the written Agreement and the parties were granted a Divorce by Decree dated January 27, 2011.
I represented the husband and this was a case which involved both of these issues. It also involved the issues of Child Custody, Visitation, and Child Support. The parties entered into a written Agreement as to all issues except for the issues of Divorce. At the Final Hearing, the Court approved the Agreement and granted the Divorce.
I represented the husband and this was a case which involved both of these issues. It also involved the issues of Child Custody, Visitation, and Child Support. The parties entered into a written Agreement as to all issues except for the issue of Divorce. At the Final Hearing, the Court approved the Agreement and granted the Divorce.
I represented the husband, and this case involved both of these issues with the equitable division issue being complicated. It also involved the issues of Non-Marital Property, Alimony and Attorney Fees. After extensive Discovery, this case was settled by written Agreement and a Final Order was issued, which granted the parties a Divorce and approved the written Agreement.
Reference the comments about this case as set forth under the Divorce and Equitable Division Case Section.
Reference the comments about this case as set forth under the Divorce and Equitable Division Case Section.
Reference the comments about this case as set forth under the Divorce and Equitable Division Case Section.
Reference the comments about this case as set forth under the Divorce and Equitable Division Case Section.
Reference the comments about this case as set forth under the Divorce and Equitable Division Case Section.
Reference the comments about this case as set forth under the Divorce and Equitable Division Case Section.
Reference the comments about this case as set forth under the Divorce and Equitable Division Case Section.
I represented both of the adoptive parents and this was a private adoption case. The Court approved the Adoption of the baby.
I represented the adoptive grandmother, who was the mother of the natural mother. The father was unknown. The maternal grandmother had been taking care of the minor child since birth and the minor child was six years old. The Court granted the Adoption. I represented the adoptive mother and the natural father in this case which was brought against the natural mother and the maternal grandmother. This case also involved the issue of Termination of Parental Rights against the natural mother and the Termination of Grandparental Rights of the natural grandmother. The Court Terminated the Parental Rights of the natural mother and the limited visitation rights of the maternal grandmother. In addition, the Court approved the Adoption of the two children by the adoptive mother (who was the new wife of the natural father).
There have been some other Adoption Cases, but I cannot recall them at this time. I represented the father in this case since November 21, 2001. The SCDSS had the custody of the father's three children. Mr. Scott had been incarcerated in the State Prison System and the mother of the children had been accused of abuse and neglect in Case Number 1998-DR-16-1408. The SCDSS also initiated a Complaint for Termination of Parental Rights against both the father and the mother, Shelieka Jones, in Case Number 1999-DR-16-1411. The Court issued its Order on March 11, 2001, in which the Court terminated the rights of the natural parents. Thereafter, the Court later issued a Supplemental Order (due to Mr. Scott's Motion for Reconsideration) in which the Court ruled that the Parental Rights of Mr. Scott to the above three children were not terminated. I was not representing Mr. Scott at this time. Later, by Order dated February 19, 2004, the SCDSS withdrew its request for Termination of the Parental Rights of Mr. Scott to these children. I did represent Mr. Scott at that time. The SCDSS instituted another action for the Termination of the Parental Rights of Mr. Scott in Case Number 2001-DR-16-0112. I was appointed to represent Mr. Scott on November 21, 2001. On May 30, 2002 the Court issued its Order which terminated his parental rights to one child.
I had continued to represent Mr. Scott in Case Number 1998-DR-16-1408 in regards to Hearings held for Permanency Planning on 3/7/2002, 9/26/2002, 11/25/2003, 6/10/2004, 6/7/2005, 6/6/2006, 6/5/2007, 6/3/2008, 5/13/09, and 5/4/2010. Mr. Scott has now been released from prison, but SCDSS still has the custody of the children. By Order dated May 28, 2010, I was relieved from further representation of Mr. Scott.
I was appointed to represent Thereva Copeland, the children's mother, in this action for the removal of her children for alleged abuse and neglect. Several Hearings were held in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Ms. Copeland complied with the Treatment Plan and by Order dated October 23, 2004, the children were returned to Ms. Copeland.
I was appointed to represent Renee S. Wright, the mother of the minor child, in a removal action for abuse and neglect. The SCDSS was granted custody of the minor child by Order dated April 3, 2003. A Treatment Plan was approved by Order dated December 30, 2003. Permanency Hearings were held on December 13, 2003, June 10, 2004, and November 30, 2004, which resulted in Orders being issued to continue the custody of the child with the SCDSS. On March 11, 2005, the Court issued its Order returning the child to Ms. Wright.
I was retained by Michael Commander, the father of one of the subject children. Mr. Commander had obtained a Divorce from Tina Commander on November 6, 2002, in the State of North Carolina. Ms. Tina Commander had the child living with her when the SCDSS instituted this case for abuse and neglect on her part. There were no allegations as to abuse and neglect against Mr. Commander. On May 14, 2005, the Court issued its Order granting the Temporary Custody of the minor child to Ola Commander, the paternal grandmother. On June 22, 2005 the Court granted the Temporary Custody of the child to Mr. Commander. Mr. Commander had filed an Answer in which he requested the legal and physical custody of the minor child. Also, Mr. Commander later had filed an Amended Answer, Counterclaim, and Cross-Claim for the legal and physical custody of the minor child. On September 28, 2005 the Court issued its Order continuing the custody of the subject minor child with Mr. Commander and required that Ms. Tina Commander be entered in the Central Registry of Child Abuse and Neglect. On December 30, 2005 the Court issued an Order which continued the custody of the subject minor child with Mr. Commander.
I was appointed to represent Amanda Bradley, the mother of the minor child, in an abuse and neglect action against her for her use of illegal drugs. Ms. Bradley filed an Answer in which she requested that the custody of the child be returned to her. On January 8, 2004, the Court continued the custody of the child with the SCDSS and approved a Treatment Plan. On February 17, 2004 the Court issued its Order continuing the legal custody of the child with the SCDSS. On August 27, 2004, the Court issued its Order granting the legal and physical custody of the child to Donna Smothers, the paternal grandmother, and provided that Ms. Bradley would have visitation with the child and that Ms. Bradley would continue her efforts to complete the Treatment Plan. On November 22, 2004, the Court issued its Order continuing the custody of the child with Donna Smothers, but provided for visitation by Ms. Bradley. I was appointed as the Guardian ad Litem for the minor child in this case involving allegations of abuse and neglect against the child's parents. On May 25, 2004, the Court issued its Order granting the custody of the child to the maternal grandfather, Mr. Frank Collier, Jr., and the Court made findings of abuse and neglect against the parents. On October 1, 2004, the Court issued its Order continuing the custody of the minor child with the maternal grandfather, Mr. Frank Collier, Jr. (as recommended by the undersigned as Guardian ad Litem ).
There have been many other cases in the Abuse and Neglect area, but I cannot recall them at this time.
I have represented some juveniles in some Juvenile Justice Cases, but I cannot recall them at this time. Therefore, I have experience in this area of family law. Gary Wilson White vs. Gloria Wase White 2010-DR-16-0500 (Closed)
I represented the husband and the husband had lost his primary job due to a "reduction in force" from a company which he had worked for twenty years and this drastically reduced the husband's income. The husband was under a prior 2006 Order to pay Alimony. The husband, in an attempt to maintain his previous income, was employed in one full-time job and three part-time jobs. However, his income had been reduced 18% through no fault of his own. At the contested Final Hearing, the Court reduced the husband's Alimony from $1,200.00 per month to $984.00 per month and the Court denied the ex-wife's request for Attorneys Fees. I was retained in 2005 by seven of the nine Heirs to these two Estates in an attempt to determine the status of both Estates and to determine what had happened to the assets of both Estates. Ms. Harriett E. Wilmeth had served initially as the Attorney for both Estates and later served as the Personal Representative of both Estates. I filed an extensive "Demand for Documents and Information" and served it on Ms. Wilmeth. A Hearing was held by Probate Judge, Marvin I. Lawson, on February 25, 2005, which resulted in an Order being issued on April 25, 2005, but Judge Lawson had orally advised the parties of his ruling on February 25, 2005. This Order set forth that a full Hearing would be conducted during the first week of May of 2005 and required Ms. Wilmeth to provide to the undersigned his requested information and documents prior to such Hearing. A Hearing was held on May 5, 2005, but there was not sufficient time to complete a presentation of the witnesses and issues and another Hearing was held on December 8, 2005. As a result of the two Hearings, the Probate Court issued an Order, dated February 3, 2006, consisting of sixty-eight pages. This Order was prepared by the undersigned pursuant to instructions issued by Judge Lawson to the undersigned. This Order found that Ms. Wilmeth had not properly served as the Attorney and/or Personal Representative of the Goodson Estates' and the Probate Court Order granted the following Judgments against Ms. Wilmeth as follows: 1. In favor of the Margaret S. Goodson Estate in the sum of $150,000.00 2. In favor of the Helen S. Goodson Estate in the sum of $317,760.97 Both Judgments totaled the sum of $467,960.97. However, at the May 5, 2005 Hearing, upon examination of Ms. Wilmeth by the undersigned, it was discovered that Ms. Wilmeth had deposited some of the Goodson Estates' monies into one of her personal companies, namely, Wilmeth Enterprises, LLC. The Probate Judge "orally ordered" Ms. Wilmeth to return those monies to the Goodson Estates' on or before May 15, 2005. Ms. Wilmeth presented a deposit slip for $861,367.52, which purported to show compliance by Ms. Wilmeth with the May 5, 2005 "oral order" to return those monies to the Goodson Estates. However, later on, it was discovered that the check for $861, 367.52 (as reflected as having been deposited into the Goodson Estates' by Ms. Wilmeth) had been "returned by the Bank due to insufficient funds". The Probate Judge issued his Emergency Order and Rule to Show Cause to Ms. Wilmeth on February 15, 2006, which required Ms. Wilmeth to appear at a Hearing on February 17, 2006 regarding the required deposit from her to the Goodson Estates' of the sum of $861,367.52. A Hearing was held on February 17, 2006, at which time Ms. Wilmeth did appear and the undersigned was also present. When Ms. Wilmeth admitted that she did not return the sum of $861,367.52 to the Goodson Estates', as required by Judge Lawson on May 5, 2005, and when Ms. Wilmeth refused to inform the Probate Judge as to the whereabouts of said money, the Probate Judge issued his Order on February 17, 2006, which sentenced Ms. Wilmeth to six months in the Darlington County Detention Center. Said Order did allow her to purge herself of the Contempt of Court by return to the Goodson Estates' of he sum of $861,583.22. This Order also removed Ms. Wilmeth as he Personal Representative of both Goodson Estates and prohibited Ms. Wilmeth from making any further withdrawals from the Goodson Estates. On February 18, 2006, Ms. Wilmeth caused the delivery to the Probate Judge of a Certified Check in the sum of $861,583.22, and the Probate Judge then allowed Ms. Wilmeth to be released from jail. Through my efforts, I was able (1) to recover from Ms. Wilmeth the sum of $861,583.22 for the Heirs of the Goodson Estates', (2) to have Ms. Wilmeth removed as Personal Representative of the Goodson Estates', and (3) obtained Judgments against Ms. Wilmeth in the total sum of $467,960.97. I am continuing my efforts to collect the Judgments against Ms. Wilmeth on behalf of the Goodson Estates'.
Also, another significant matter relating to Ms. Wilmeth and this case, was that I believe that my representation of the Goodson Estates' and the uncovering of the conversion of the Goodson Estates' money by Ms. Wilmeth, was helpful in the Supreme Court of South Carolina issuing its Order for Interim Suspension of Ms. Wilmeth on March 22, 2006 and the Disbarment Ms. Wilmeth by Order of the Supreme Court of South Carolina on May 15, 2007 (with the Goodson Estates' being referred to as "Matter 1" in the Disbarment Order). I represented Mr. Hernandez in this Workers Compensation Case against his employer, Labor Services, Inc. Mr. Hernandez was employed by Labor Services, Inc. and was placed at Charles Ingram Lumber Company. Mr. Hernandez was injured on January 3, 2002 while operating a machine at Charles Ingram Lumber Company. Mr. Hernandez incurred an injury to his right arm which required surgery and which resulted in Mr. Hernandez being given a 100% permanent residual impairment to his upper right arm. Mr. Hernandez did not reach maximum medical improvement until August 16, 2002, but that he would still require some continuing medical treatment due to his continuing pain in his right hand, arm, and shoulder. Mr. Hernandez was an illegal alien and he did misrepresent his legal status on his employment application. On October 15, 2002, Commissioner Sherry Shealy Martschink held a Hearing on this matter and on June 10, 2003, the Hearing Commissioner issued her Order which ruled that Mr. Hernandez sustained a compensable injury by accident during his course and scope of his employment. The Order further provides that he was entitled to payment of all medical expenses related to his treatment of injuries due to the accident. It further provided that he was entitled to Temporary Total Disability payments for a period of 33 weeks and for payment of an additional 50 weeks for disfigurement. The Order further provided that he was entitled to the payment for 220 weeks for his 100% permanent impairment to his right arm. Within the statutory time period, the Employer filed an Application for Review before the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission. On February 24, 2004, the parties appeared before the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission and on April 2, 2004, the Appellate Panel issued its Decision and Order, in which it unanimously approved the Hearing Commissioner's Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law, and that the Appellate Panel sustained the June 10, 2003 Order in its entirety. The Employer filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal the April 2, 2004 Decision and Order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission on April 28, 2004 in the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in Florence, South Carolina. This Appeal was given Case Number 2004-CP-12-792. The basis for the Employer's Appeal was that Mr. Hernandez was prohibited from compensation due to the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 "pre-empting" South Carolina Law. This Appeal was heard before the Honorable James E. Brogdon, Jr., Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, and on October 20, 2004, Judge Brogdon issued his Order, consisting of 17, which affirmed the April 2, 2004 Decision and Order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission. The undersigned prepared this Order pursuant to the instruction from Judge Brogdon. After the October 20, 2004 Order, The Employer paid to Mr. Hernandez the benefits to which he was entitled.
The significance of this case was that the rulings followed the Law of South Carolina that an employee, even if he was an illegal alien, could recover for his injuries sustained in a work related accident. If the Appellate Panel or the Circuit Court had ruled against Mr. Hernandez, such ruling could have been a precedent for other cases involving illegal aliens who were employed and then injured on the job. I represented the homeowners, Mr. Leon C. Pennington, Jr. and Beverly J. Pennington, in an action for damages sustained as the result of a sewage back-up into their residence located within the City of Hartsville. The residence sustained substantial damage as the sewage back-up occurred during a time period when the homeowners were out of town. The bottom floor of their residence was totally inundated with sewage and it contaminated not only the floors, rugs, walls, appliances, and furnishings, but also the clothing of the Penningtons and their children (including everything upstairs). The Penningtons had to move out of their house for the repairs to be made. Many of the appliances, rugs, furnishings, and clothing had to be disposed of. Some of the furnishings and clothing were able to be cleaned by a special and expensive disinfectant cleaning process. Even after the repairs had been made to the house, Beverly J. Pennington still suffered from an allergic reaction to what toxins may have remained in the house. Also, since it was common knowledge in the community as to what had transpired, the house was looked upon as being "tainted", which affected the valuation of the house. The Penningtons had planned to try to sell the house prior to the sewage back-up, but due to the "stigma" on it after the back-up, they were unable to sell it. During the lawsuit, Discovery was conducted and it was discovered that the City was aware of some prior minor sewage back-ups to the Penningtons' house, but these had been only minor back-ups in the tub, and when noticed by the Penningtons, they called the City, and the City sent some workers out to fix the sewage line. The City was under notice that it needed to periodically check the sewage line to prevent such sewage back-ups, but the City had failed to check on that sewage line for an extended period of time. The City strongly contested its liability. However, shortly before trial, the parties agreed to submit this case to Mediation. During the daylong Mediation, the City finally agreed to pay to the Penningtons the sum of $219,000.00
The significance of this case was that it was a very difficult case in which to prevail, but due to the outcome of the Discovery, we were able to place the liability squarely on the City of Hartsville due to its failure to take steps in which to lessen the possibility of such an extreme sewer back-up after it had notice of prior problems. In this case, I represented the Bank in a collection matter against Mr. Kokontis and Mrs. Kokontis. This case was tried by a Jury, and the Jury brought back a Verdict for the Bank. The facts of the case were that Mr. and Mrs. Kokontis had obtained a loan (secured by an automobile and restaurant equipment) from the Bank on September 3, 1976. Sometime during the term of the loan, a Bank employee mistakenly marked some loan documents as "paid" and mailed out the said documents. These mistakenly marked "paid" documents included the loan documents of Mr. and Mrs. Kokontis along with the loan documents of several other customers. The other customers called the Bank and inquired about their having received their loan documents marked "paid" when they had not paid off their loans. Based upon those calls by the other customers, the Bank became aware of the mistake of marking of the loan documents as "paid". Upon contacting Mr. and Mrs. Kokontis, they took the position that since their loan documents were marked "paid", they did not owe any money to the Bank. At trial, the Bank presented testimony from its employee who had mistakenly marked the loan documents as "paid", together with testimony as to the payment history of Mr. and Mrs. Kokontis (which did not reflect the receipt of any payments from them around the time that the loan documents were marked "paid"). Also, another customer of the Bank testified that he had not paid off his loans and the Bank must have made a mistake when they were marked "paid." Mr. and Mrs. Kokontis continued to take the position that the loan was paid off and they stated that it had been paid off with cash given to a Bank employee. However, they could not identify that employee or prove where they had obtained the cash to have made the payment. The Jury returned a Verdict for the Bank as they did not believe the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Kokontis.
The significance of this case was that when one (the Bank) unilaterally makes a mistake, another person cannot profit from that mistake made by the other person. It further showed that a Jury will weigh all of the pertinent facts and render a Verdict that the Jury believes is appropriate and correct. In this case, I solely represented Mr. Kelly in the Jury Trial in Circuit Court in regards to his claim for damages sustained to his automobile under a policy insured by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. Mr. Edward Jack Smith was the local agent and Mr. Edward L. Jennings was a Vice-President of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The facts of this case were that Mr. Kelly had purchased an insurance policy on his vehicle from Nationwide through a local agent. The insured automobile was destroyed by fire, and when Mr. Kelly made a claim for his damages, Nationwide, through his local agent, advised Mr. Kelly that his insurance policy had been cancelled for non-payment of premium prior to the fire which destroyed his automobile. Mr. Kelly had his vehicle financed with a local bank and he still owed money to the bank on his loan. The bank had also been listed as a "loss payee" on the Nationwide insurance policy. After Mr. Kelly made his claim, it was denied as Nationwide, his local agent, and Mr. Jennings all made assertions that the policy had been cancelled for non-payment of premium prior to the fire and that Mr. Kelly and his local bank had been given Notice of Cancellation of the policy. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Kelly's bank did not recall having received any Notice of Cancellation from Nationwide. Based upon the refusal to pay by Nationwide, I brought a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Kelly in which the lawsuit alleged a cause of action for breach of contract (for actual damages) and a cause of action for breach of contract accompanied by a "fraudulent act" (for punitive damages). We took the Deposition of several people, including the postal employee who certified that Nationwide had mailed hundreds of document on a particular day as shown on a list prepared by Nationwide (which allegedly included the Notice of Cancellation of Mr. Kelly's policy). However, upon cross-examination, this postal employee testified that he never checked to see if all of the documents contained on the list had been mailed as he merely "took Nationwide's word" that all documents contained on the list were in the container of documents which were mailed. During a trip to Raleigh, North Carolina, when I was looking through Mr. Kelly's records at Nationwide's main office, I came across a "Memo" written by Mr. Jennings that "cautioned" people to be especially careful in handling the claim of Mr. Kelly. During Trial, upon cross-examination of Mr. Jennings, the undersigned asked Mr. Jennings, about when he first knew of Mr. Kelly's claim, and he stated that it was not until the lawsuit had been served. The undersigned then presented Mr. Jennings with a copy of his "Memo" about cautioning people to handle the claim of Mr. Kelly especially carefully. Mr. Jennings could not explain the discrepancies between his answer and the "Memo" that he wrote prior to the lawsuit being served. The Judge submitted both causes of action to be decided by the Jury. The Jury returned a Verdict for Mr. Kelly for several thousand dollars in actual damages on the breach of contract cause of action and for $125,000.00 in punitive damages on the breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act cause of action. The Defendants made a Motion for Judgment N.O.V. on the cause of action for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act (i.e., punitive damages). The Trial Judge granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment N.O.V. as to the punitive damages cause of action. Mr. Kelly appealed the disallowance of the $125,000.00 punitive damages awarded by the Jury. The undersigned requested Mr. J. Rutledge Young, Jr. to assist him in the Appeal. Both attorneys fully participated in the Appeal. The Supreme Court "Affirmed" the ruling of the Trial Judge in granting the Motion for Judgment N.O.V. as to the punitive damages award. The Supreme Court stated that there was not any evidence where fraudulent intent could be reasonably inferred and that Mr. Kelly did not rely on the alleged misrepresentation concerning coverage. The problem which Mr. Kelly encountered in the breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act cause of action was to be able to prove "reliance" on the misrepresentation made by Nationwide. It was clear that Mr. Jennings had made an attempt to handle this claim especially carefully (i.e., the Memo), but there was no way that Mr. Kelly could prove that he relied on it to his detriment. At this time, our Supreme Court had not yet recognized the tort of "Bad Faith", which does not require the proof of all of the elements as required in a case for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act cause of action.
The undersigned believes that this case may have had some bearing on the Supreme Court later recognizing the tort of "Bad Faith."
This was heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court and the Opinion was filed on December 21, 1982.
This was heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court and the opinion was filed on May 13, 1980.
This was an Appeal by Mr. Beasley, whom the undersigned represented in a Darlington County Family Court Case Number 1978-DR-16-540. Briefs were filed by the undersigned, but the parties resolved this Appeal prior to it being heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court and the Appeal was dismissed by Order of the South Carolina Supreme Court on April 24, 1979.
Reference the discussion of this case under Question Number 19 - response of the undersigned under (b), which involved (1) an Appeal from the Order of the Hearing Commissioner to the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission and (2) an Appeal from the Decision and Order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission to the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit.
In the Spring of 2009, I was a candidate for the Fourth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 3. I was deemed qualified, but I was not one of the three candidates "screened out."
The Commission believes that Mr. Stanton's temperament would be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizens Committee found Mr. Stanton to be "Qualified" in regards to the evaluative criteria of constitutional qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee found Mr. Stanton "Well qualified" in the remaining criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated under "reputation" that Mr. Stanton is "well-respected by his peers." In regards to his judicial temperament, the committee reported that Mr. Stanton is "typically even-tempered yet admits to a bit of impatience when dealing with laziness or unwillingness to work to one's full potential (which is deemed a positive attribute by this committee). He is very much a gentleman - courteous, attentive and patient throughout the course of our interview." Mr. Stanton is married to Betsy Catherine Hayes Stanton. He has two children.
Mr. Stanton reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Member - 1974 to Present President - 1992
Secretary/Treasurer - 1975-76; Member - 1974 to Present Member of Citizen's Implementation Committee - 1980-81 Sixth District Congressional Representative to the South Carolina Young Lawyers' Division - 1982-83
Appointee to the Panel of the South Carolina Board of Grievances (cannot recall dates); (now known as South Carolina Association for Justice)
I have previously been a member, but I have never held any office; (now known as American Association for Justice)
I have previously been a member, but I have never held any office; I have previously been a member, but I have never held any office. Mr. Stanton provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Prestwood Country Club, Hartsville, S.C. Member - 1977-2010 President - 1980-81 Vice-President - 1979-80
Director - 1977-79.
Director - 1980 to 1984;
Director - 1977 to 1979;
Director - 1977 to 1979;
Professional Division Chairman - 1976;
Vice-President - 1987 to 1994;
Presenter of Seminar at the 1990 AASA National Convention on topic "Utilizing the Curriculum Audit as a School Reform Tool."
The Commission commented that Mr. Stanton has an outstanding grasp of the law which was demonstrated by his performance on the Commission's Practice and Procedure test. They noted his 37 years of practicing law would serve him well in discharging his responsibilities on the Family Court. The Commission found Mr. Stanton qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2.
Thirteenth Circuit, Seat 3 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
- A General Practice Webinar 10/27/10;
Bar License with E-mail 02/17/10; SCB - Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Law Practitioners 02/11/09; SCWLA - Attorney Ethics & Discipline 01/28/09; SCB - Tips from the Bench 02/15/08; Greenville County Bar - Year-End CLE 02/08/08;
Non-Profit Corporations from A-Z 02/09/07;
South Carolina Jurisprudence (S.C. Bar CLE 1993), Contributing Author of the "Children and Families" topic of Volume 21.
I was elected to Greenville City Council At-Large, 1993-95. I timely filed my report with the State Ethics Commission during that time period.
Ms. Christophillis appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Christophillis appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
I ran for Greenville County Council in 1984. In the Fall of 2008 and in the Fall of 2009, I ran as a candidate for Family Court Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat #6 and #2, respectively, was found qualified and was recommended on each occasion to the General Assembly by the JMSC, but I withdrew prior to each election.
The Commission believes that Ms. Christophillis's temperament would be excellent. Thirty-four years ago, when I was a second-year law student, my father gave me the book Simple Justice. This book chronicled the historic case of Brown v. Board of Education, published the year of my birth. My father inscribed in the book, "On balance, the law profession has helped salvage the most noble hopes we see all too dimly - you have chosen well." Simple Justice has stayed on my desk ever since, and my father's words "noble hopes" have permeated throughout my life and career. I have always found noble hopes in helping families one case, one child, one parent, and one grandparent at a time. These hopes, fueled by compassion, tenacity, and an understanding spirit, have guided me through 32 years of advocating for families by handling their divorces, their custody battles, their separations, and other challenges in Family Court. These hopes have made me an advocate for children who have been abused or neglected. They have taken me to the State House to testify for the "Homicide by Child Abuse" and Child Fatalities Statutes, which I wrote. These hopes took me to Nashville as a speaker before the National Conference of State Legislators to present the intervention protocol for drug-impaired infants, which I developed. These hopes took me to Washington, DC, to testify before Congress about the success of the protocol. These hopes took me to all of our State's judicial circuits to educate and train multi-disciplinary teams. Abused and neglected adults are often an overlooked segment of our population. Their hopes took me again to all 46 of our counties, training and educating teams on intervention and prosecution on their behalf. It took me back to Washington, DC, to present our protocol before the US Attorney General. In the early 1990's, I recognized the potential of mediation before it was implemented in South Carolina. I received my 40 hours of training and certification in Atlanta when it was not yet available in South Carolina and helped write the rules that we now use in our state. Today, mediation is recognized as an integral part of our Family Court system, having succeeded in offering an alternative means of resolving very difficult cases.
These noble hopes guided me through service as an at-large member of Greenville City Council and as an active volunteer for many different civic and non-profit groups.
Most importantly, these noble hopes are found in the love of my family, my three children, and my husband of 32 years. My father spoke of "noble hopes we see all too dimly," but my life experience has allowed me to see noble hopes most brightly. They shine steadfastly. My hope is now to serve the citizens of South Carolina as a Family Court Judge and help deliver "Simple Justice."
The Commission commented that Ms. Christophillis has tremendous experience in the Family Court and would be an asset to the Family Court bench. They also noted her active civic involvement in her local community. The Commission found Ms. Christophillis qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3.
Thirteenth Circuit, Seat 3 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Phillips meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Phillips was born in 1964. He is 46 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Phillips provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991. He was also admitted to the Alabama Bar in 1996. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Phillips. Mr. Phillips demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Phillips reported that he has made $40.00 in campaign expenditures for copy paper and an ink cartridge. Mr. Phillips testified he has not: (a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening; (b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator; (c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Phillips testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Phillips to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Phillips described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Mr. Phillips reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: I have been a guest lecturer on the topics of family law and domestic practice for students in the Greenville Technical College paralegal program on several occasions and for a Lander University class. I have also been a lecturer in a SCDSS Office of General Counsel seminar concerning the use of hearsay statements made by children under SC Code Section 19-1-180.
Mr. Phillips reported that he has not published any books and/or articles. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Phillips did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Phillips did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Phillips has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Phillips was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Phillips reported that he is not rated by any legal rating organization. He reported, "I am not aware of any rating by a legal organization, perhaps because I have been employed as an attorney for the South Carolina Department of Social Services for the past ten years."
Mr. Phillips appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Phillips appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Phillips was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Mr. Phillips further reported: Beginning in 1996, I have represented numerous clients in cases involving divorce, equitable division of property and child custody in Family Court. These cases constituted approximately 50% of my practice prior to 1991 when I became a full time SCDSS attorney. I was fully involved in all aspects of case preparation, including preparation of affidavits and financial declarations, compiling witness lists and preparation of the witnesses for trial, child support calculations, and drafting of the Orders at the request of the Judge following the hearing. Representation of clients in those cases also involved appearances in contempt hearings and protection from domestic abuse hearings, and hearings involving child support (for a reduction in amount, an increase in amount, and/or failure to pay), and application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. The divorce cases covered both fault-based grounds and one year continuous separation, annulments and bigamy situations. Additionally, I represented guardians and served myself as a guardian, in contested custody cases. I also handled name changes, adoption and emancipation cases which were sometimes related to an underlying divorce or child custody case. In 1991, I began full-time employment with the Department of Social Services. I have since handled hundreds of cases (with trials and hearings on a weekly basis) involving all aspects of child abuse and neglect, and cases involving abuse/exploitation/neglect of vulnerable adults. In the trial of cases involving children, custody has oftentimes been both contested and litigated, both from the aspect of bringing children into foster care, and from the aspect of which parent or relative(s) would end up with custody of the child or children. The cases have consisted of almost every scenario imaginable, including sex abuse, physical abuse, physical neglect, medical neglect, educational neglect, mental injury, financial exploitation, death of a child, excessive corporal punishment, and cases requiring the use of interpreters for all hearings (Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Central American Indian dialects, sign language). A substantial number of the cases have resulted in termination of parental rights and eventual adoption of the child/children. These cases have also required interaction with other South Carolina agencies involved with the families, such as the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, and agencies in other states involving implementation of the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC). Not surprisingly, I have also handled many cases in which the children involved in the SCDSS case are also juvenile defendants in a case brought against them by the Solicitor's Office and involving the Department of Juvenile Justice. Oftentimes the subject juvenile defendants have been placed into foster care via emergency protective custody, or were already in foster care (foster home/group home/runaway) when they allegedly committed some crime, thus necessitating my involvement in the juvenile case.
Mr. Phillips reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Phillips reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Phillips reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Mr. Phillips provided, "I most often serve as sole counsel, however, as senior attorney for our SCDSS legal office, I have often appeared as co-counsel with other attorneys in complex cases."
The following is Mr. Phillips' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
The following is Mr. Phillips' account of the civil appeals he has personally handled: Mr. Phillips reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Mr. Phillips further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
I withdrew from the Family Court, 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, judicial election on January 20, 2010, after having been selected one of the three candidates by the Judicial Merit Selection Committee.
The Commission believes that Mr. Phillips' temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizens Committee found Mr. Phillips to be "Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of constitutional qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee found Mr. Phillips "Well qualified" in the remaining criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary, "The committee believes Mr. Phillips would make an excellent Family Court Judge." Mr. Phillips is married to Tammy Ensor Phillips. He has four children.
Mr. Phillips reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. Phillips provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
The Commission commented that Mr. Phillips' outstanding, well-tempered demeanor would assist in making him an excellent family court judge. They noted his dedicated public service as a DSS attorney and sincere commitment to the Family Court. The Commission found Mr. Phillips qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3.
Thirteenth Circuit, Seat 3 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Quinn meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Quinn was born in 1953. He is 57 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Quinn provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Quinn. Mr. Quinn demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Quinn reported that he not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Quinn testified he has not: The Commission found Mr. Quinn to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Quinn described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: (a) I lectured at a National Business Institute Seminar, The Criminal Trial: Pre-trial to Post- Verdict Motions on cross-examination and post-verdict motions. (b) I have made presentations on the topics of family court criminal practice to judges and lawyers at an SC Bar Seminar.
(c) I have taught cross-examination and trial technique at the National College of District Attorneys. (4) Character: The Commission's investigation of Mr. Quinn did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Quinn did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Quinn has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Quinn was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Quinn reported regarding a rating by a legal rating organization, that he is rated on Martindale-Hubbell as preeminent by client review.
Mr. Quinn appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Quinn appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Quinn was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Mr. Quinn further reported: During a third year internship and for the first several years of my practice, I primarily was in Family Court defending, and then prosecuting, criminal cases. When I was the Public Defender in Beaufort we were responsible for defense in Family Court and I did court at least twice a month for three years. I occasionally get a DJJ case now but most of the work in that part of Family Court is done by the Public Defender. I am familiar with the court and the issues that would arise there because of my criminal defense work. I did divorce work for several years while I was in private practice as a real part of my practice and have been familiar with the issues, equitable division of property, divorce, restraining orders, etc., involved for several years. I have continued to deal with those issues as a Family Court mediator in South Carolina since 1994. A large part of my practice since 2002 has been DSS cases. I have served as Guardian ad Litem for children, adults and parties and as counsel for the parties brought to court by DSS. The issue of custody is litigated in almost every DSS case as are the issues of visitation, services, and child support. Some cases brought by DSS are termination of parental rights actions and in those cases often adoptive parents are joined as third parties so I have some familiarity with adoption through those actions.
Mr. Quinn reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows: Mr. Quinn reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 0%;
Mr. Quinn reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Mr. Quinn provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Quinn's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
The following is Mr. Quinn's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled: The following is Mr. Quinn's account of the criminal appeal he has personally handled:
United States of America, Plaintiff, Appellee v. Benjamin Means, Jr., Defendant, Appellant. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. July 21, 2010 the case was resolved by voluntary dismissal and, so, the case was not reported.
The Commission believes that Mr. Quinn's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Quinn to be "Qualified" for the following evaluative categories: constitutional qualifications, physical health and mental stability. The Committee found him "Well qualified" in the areas of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary, "The committee was extremely impressed with this candidate and all of the people we spoke to about him gave very glowing responses. His experience level is vast and includes work as public defender, prosecutor, and private practice. He has extensive trial experience in all courts throughout South Carolina. His heartfelt reasoning for wanting this position was especially impressive." Mr. Quinn is married to Joy Dean Bennett. He has two children.
Mr. Quinn reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. Quinn provided that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
The Commission commented that Mr. Quinn was confident at the Public Hearing and has an outstanding demeanor which would equip him well on the Family Court bench. The Commission further noted Mr. Quinn's extensive trial experience in all the courts in South Carolina. The Commission found Mr. Quinn qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3.
Fourteenth Circuit, Seat 3 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. DeWitt meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. DeWitt was born in 1955. She is 55 years old and a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina. Ms. DeWitt provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. DeWitt. Ms. DeWitt demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Ms. DeWitt reported that she has spent $75.44 on postage.
Ms. DeWitt testified she has not:
Ms. DeWitt testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Ms. DeWitt to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. DeWitt described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Ms. DeWitt reported that she has taught the following law related courses:
Ms. DeWitt reported that she has published the following: The Commission's investigation of Ms. DeWitt did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. DeWitt did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. DeWitt has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. DeWitt was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
Ms. DeWitt reported that she is not rated by any legal rating organization. She stated: "I have not requested a rating and, to my knowledge, do not have one."
Ms. DeWitt appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. DeWitt appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. DeWitt was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
As Chief Public Defender I jury tried approximately 100 cases as sole counsel and served as co-counsel on Assistant Public Defender cases. The cases I personally handled in five years as public defender ran the entire gamut of criminal offenses, from the least serious to the most violent. These cases raised 5th and 6th Amendment issues related to Right to Counsel, Miranda violations, Lyle and Bruton issues, competency issues related to Defendants and witnesses, and involved defenses including insanity, self defense, defense of others, necessity, alibi, entrapment, Battered Woman's Syndrome, Battered Child's defense, eyewitness identification, recantation, reliability issues related to forensic evidence and the like. I researched and presented or cross-examined witnesses on topics such as shaken baby syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, rape trauma syndrome, Munchhausen syndrome (and by proxy), Osteogenesis Imperfecta (brittle bone disease), post traumatic stress disorder, Asperger's syndrome, organic brain damage, and mental illnesses. In the Family Courts, I have handled actions for annulment, declaratory judgment on common law marriage, divorce on grounds of physical cruelty, habitual drunkenness, adultery, and one year's separation grounds, equitable division of property including military retirement benefits, and equitable division of debts, alimony, child support, child support for adult disabled children, paternity and support - both private cases and those brought by SCDSS Child Support Enforcement ; and on actions to set arrears under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, visitation rights, bench warrants, petitioners for orders of protection, petitions for guardianship, to create delayed birth certificates, to amend or correct birth certificates, for adult and minor name changes. I have prosecuted and defended contempt actions. I have represented Fathers, Mothers, Grandparents, and other third parties in custody and visitation actions. I have represented parents, stepparents and un-related adoptive parents and served as guardian ad litem for the child in contested and uncontested actions for termination of parental rights and adoption. I have served as guardian ad litem for children in private custody cases, in actions to withdraw consents to adoption, and in child abuse and neglect proceedings. I have served as guardian/attorney for vulnerable, disabled, and incompetent adults in Adult Protective Service actions, divorce actions and in probate court actions. I have brought and defended actions to modify or terminate alimony and child support, and to custody and visitation orders. I have handled numerous relocation cases. I have tried cases in the family court involving issues of custody, alimony, equitable division, child abuse and neglect, grounds of divorce, attorney's fees, child support, relocation of a child outside the state and outside the United States, termination of parental rights, withdrawal of adoption consent, contempt, and other issues. I have handled cases involving interstate jurisdiction issues and continue to represent juveniles accused of crimes and status offenses, as retained or by appointment, and have served as guardian ad litem for juveniles when the parents' interests were in conflict with the child's. I was a contract lawyer for the Department of Social Services in Beaufort and Jasper Counties in 2000, 2001, 2005-06 serving on as needed basis when no staff attorney was available to prosecute child abuse and neglect proceedings, termination of parental rights complaints, and adult protective services cases. For a period of eight months I was the full time DSS attorney while also running my private practice full time. As a DSS attorney I prosecuted and tried several child abuse and neglect cases, as well as prepared for and presented uncontested cases at Review Hearings, Permanency Planning Hearings, on Emergency Custody petitions, and represented the agency at probable cause and merits hearings, contempt and temporary hearings and at motions hearings. In my private practice, I have represented clients of every economic and educational level as well as many military service members. I have also represented individuals from diverse cultures and other nationalities.
Ms. DeWitt reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Ms. DeWitt reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Ms. DeWitt reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. DeWitt provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. DeWitt's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
The following is Ms. DeWitt's account of the civil appeals she has personally handled: Ms. DeWitt reported she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Ms. DeWitt further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
The Commission believes that Ms. DeWitt's temperament would be excellent. The Lowcountry Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Ms. DeWitt to be "Qualified" for all of the nine evaluative categories: constitutional qualifications, physical health, mental stability, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. Ms. DeWitt is not married. She has three children.
Ms. DeWitt reported that she was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations:
Ms. DeWitt provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Ms. DeWitt further reported: I have been fortunate to have practiced in the rural areas of this judicial circuit as well as in Beaufort County which is demographically quite different from Colleton, Jasper, Hampton or Allendale counties. I have represented the poorest people in this circuit and also some of the wealthiest. I understand the issues they have in the family courts as well as the relocation issues experienced so often by active duty service members in Beaufort County where we have three military bases. My background as the daughter of a Marine gives me a unique understanding of their concerns and of the need for courts to provide workable solutions for them and their children. I am keenly aware of the cultural differences that arise when a party or one parent is of a different nationality and of the international and interstate jurisdiction problems that can result when a child is removed from its home state and country.
The cases Family Court judges decide are often complex and their decisions impact litigants and children's lives for many years, and sometimes forever. I have the compassion, patience and understanding to hear each case, base my decisions on admissible evidence and at all times do what the law requires while balancing the constitutional rights of parties with the need to protect and serve the best interests of children.
The Commission commented that Ms. DeWitt is very experienced in the area of family law after practicing law for 28 years. The Commission noted that Ms. DeWitt has an excellent demeanor and would very ably serve as a family court judge. The Commission found Ms. DeWitt qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3.
Fourteenth Circuit, Seat 3 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Ms. Malphrus reported that she is not rated by any legal rating organization.
Ms. Malphrus appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Malphrus appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Malphrus was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1990.
I have represented both men and women, as both Plaintiffs and Defendants in divorce action for the past sixteen years. Most of these cases have involved equitable distribution issues. Many of these cases have involved contested custody issues, contested spousal support issues, and transmutation of property issues. I have tried cases involving contested grandparent visitation. I have represented clients in contested termination of parental rights actins. I have also represented clients in cases involving the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and the Uniform Child Support Enforcement Act. As assistant Solicitor, I prosecuted many juvenile offenders and represented the State in abuse and neglect, adult protective services, termination of parental rights, and adoption proceedings. I have also litigated private, contested adoption cases and served as Guardian ad Litem in many domestic actions.
In 2007 I ran for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 2. I was found qualified but not nominated.
The Commission believes that Ms. Malphrus' temperament would be excellent.
St. Paul's United Methodist Church, Ridgeland, South Carolina. I am hard-working, compassionate and honest. Serving as a member of the judiciary has been my career goal since I clerked for the Honorable Carol Connor Twenty years ago. In recent years, I have foregone the opportunity to have a more lucrative legal career in the medical malpractice field to focus on and increase my family court practice because I hope to be a Family court judge. I pride myself on always being prepared and providing excellent representation to my domestic clients. My parents separated when I was twelve years old, and divorced when I was sixteen years old. My father was my primary custodian because my mother moved away to further her education. I know firsthand how separation and divorce affect children. I also know firsthand that fathers can be successful single parents to their children. I am the mother of three children and have been happily married for 24 years. I have been a working mother my entire married life, and I understand the important roles of both mothers and fathers in parenting children.
My experience representing the State in abuse and neglect and juvenile offender matters for many years is what really sparked my desire to serve on the Family Court Bench. Family Court Judges in our State are given the unique opportunity to truly make a difference in the lives of South Carolina's most vulnerable citizens---our children and our vulnerable adults. I want to have the opportunity to be one of those Judges that make a difference.
Bryan W. Braddock (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Braddock meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Braddock was born in 1973. He is 38 years old and a resident of Hartsville, South Carolina. Mr. Braddock provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1998. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Braddock. Mr. Braddock demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Braddock reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
The Commission found Mr. Braddock to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
SCAJ Hilton Head Convention, August, 2009;
SCAJ Hilton Head Convention, [scheduled for] August 2011. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Braddock did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Braddock did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Braddock has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Braddock was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Braddock reported that he is not rated by any legal rating organization. He reported, "I am not aware of any current rating by Martindale-Hubbell. At one time, I believe I was rated BV. However, my current firm does not advertise with Martindale-Hubbell, as we did not find it to be an effective tool of obtaining clients, and I have, therefore, not been contacted by Martindale-Hubbell about participating in the peer review process."
Mr. Braddock appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Braddock appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Braddock was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1998.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
I have prosecuted and defended cases involving every actionable ground for divorce. I have been successful in having Court find common law marriages. I have successfully argued for annulments.
I have been involved in equitable divisions including arguments of marital versus non-marital status of property, arguments of constructive trusts, arguments for special interest trusts, division of defined benefit and defined contribution retirement plans, and cases in which both real property and personal property appraisers were utilized.
I have successfully obtained custody for fathers, mothers, step-fathers, grandparents, distant family members, and psychological parents. I have been involved in cases involving various experts, including counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists.
I have handled cases involving the voluntary and involuntary termination of parental rights. I have handled adoptions for family members, step-parents, and unrelated third parties. I have handled private adoption and special needs adoptions.
I have handled hundreds of DSS Abuse and Neglect cases alleging all levels of abuse. I recently participated in a case in which an orthopedist and a pediatric orthopedist were deposed, and the matter had to be tried over a full day, preventing DSS from obtaining a finding against my client. I handled a case from the very beginning, through the involuntary TPR stage, and through the appeal to the Court of Appeals.
As a private attorney and during my brief stint as a part-time Public Defender, I have handled dozens of DJJ cases, possibly over a hundred.
South Carolina Department of Social Services vs. Marggie Hutson, Eliseo Perez, and Landin Nuan Perez, from the Family Court; Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-238; filed May 15, 2006.
The Commission believes that Mr. Braddock's temperament would be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Braddock to be "Qualified" for the following evaluative categories: constitutional qualifications, physical health and mental stability. The Committee found him "Well qualified" in the areas of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary, "Mr. Braddock is an excellent candidate who, although younger than one might expect for a judicial candidate, has extensive experience in family court litigation which erased our initial concern." Mr. Braddock is married to Dusty Renae Spring Braddock. He has two children. Mr. Braddock reported that he was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations: (a) South Carolina Bar Association; (b) Darlington County Bar; (c) Florence County Bar; (d) South Carolina Association for Justice: Board of Governors (2008- Notification of Candidacy for this position), Legislative Planning Steering Committee (Family Court Representative; 2008- Notification of Candidacy for this position). Mr. Braddock provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: (a) Loyal Order of the Moose; Trustee (2002-03); (b) Moose Legion; (c) College of Charleston Alumni Association. Mr. Braddock further reported: It is my goal to become a Family Court Judge. I am not running for this position because I want to be a Circuit Court Judge. I am not running for this position because I want to run for some political office some day. I am running for this office neither because I am tired of practicing law nor because my career and/or practice is at a crossroads.
I am running for the position of a South Carolina Family Court Judge because I believe this would provide the greatest opportunity to have a positive impact on as many people as possible; because I believe my attitude and demeanor would have a positive effect on both the parties and practitioners appearing before me; because I believe that our Family Court system is the most equitable and just part of our judicial system; and because I want to retire someday having had the fullest impact on as many people of all ages as possible.
The Commission commented that Mr. Braddock has diverse experience in the family court, which would serve him well on the bench. The Commission noted that Mr. Braddock is devoted to his law practice in the family court and also noted his good work ethic. The Commission found Mr. Braddock qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Family Court judge, for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2.
Fourth Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Ervin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Ervin was born in 1959. He is 52-years old and a resident of Darlington, South Carolina. Mr. Ervin provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Ervin. Mr. Ervin demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Ervin reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Ervin testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
The Commission found Mr. Ervin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
CLE transcript and was unable to pull the transcript off their website. I can verify that I have always met or exceeded the requisite number of CLE hours. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Ervin did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Ervin did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Ervin has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Ervin was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Ervin reported that his rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, is BV.
Mr. Ervin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Ervin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Ervin was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985. Mr. Ervin further reported: I initially was a law clerk for Judge Floyd in Conway, SC. I left there to accept a position as an assistant solicitor for Solicitor Jim Anders and was responsible for prosecuting violent crimes and all of the Richland County drug cases. After three years, I left to take a position as an associate with John Milling in Darlington, SC. I was also continuing to prosecute part time and to represent DSS and DJJ in Darlington County. I continued in this capacity until 1991, when I became a partner in Milling and Ervin, and left the solicitor's office. Since then I have been in private practice, handling all types of civil and criminal litigation, including domestic cases. I was certified as lead counsel in death penalty cases by the S.C. Supreme Court in 1992 and have represented numerous defendants in death penalty cases. I have handled many DSS and DJJ cases and all other types of domestic litigation. In addition, I have also represented Plaintiffs in civil matters. I think it is fair to describe my practice as a general practice.
I have represented numerous parties in cases involving divorce and equitable division since 1989, when I moved to Darlington, SC. John Milling was my partner and was always available to mentor and answer any questions regarding the same. I have also represented many people in cases involving child custody and support, contempt and visitation cases. As stated, I have been involved in these cases for over twenty-two (22) years and all family court cases involve a variety of issues, particularly when minor children are involved. I was first exposed to S.C. DSS cases involving abuse and neglect as a young prosecutor. At that time, assistant solicitors represented DSS and prosecuted cases involving the abuse or neglect of minors. I represented DSS and DJJ when I moved to Darlington, SC in 1989 and was very familiar with all aspects of such cases. After I left the Fourth Circuit Solicitors Office in 1991, I began defending such cases, and have continued to do so to the present. As I have indicated in this questionnaire, I have both prosecuted and defended juvenile clients almost my entire legal career, and I have continued to do so to this day. Mr. Ervin provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Ervin's account of his five most significant litigated matters: The following is Mr. Ervin's account of the civil appeal he has personally handled:
Tara Rabuck v. Robert M. Wilomovsky, 2008-DR-16-0088, Appeal pending from the Darlington County Family Court to the S.C. Court of Appeals. Mr. Ervin further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
Solicitor Fourth Judicial Circuit June 10, 2008; Solicitor Fourth Judicial Circuit June 13, 2000; -S.C. State Senate August 12, 2002.
The Commission believes that Mr. Ervin's temperament would be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Ervin to be "Qualified" for all of the nine evaluative categories. Those categories are: constitutional qualifications, physical health, mental stability, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee expressed that Mr. Ervin's experience "appears to be a bit more weighted in criminal matters, both in and out of family court. This concern was addressed in interview and has been attributed to the poor economy which has had a negative impact on domestic litigation in the last few years."
Mr. Ervin is married to Leslie Pearce Ervin. He has two children.
The Commission commented that Mr. Ervin has an outstanding demeanor and is well respected in his community. They noted Mr. Ervin's experience in the family court, although recently affected by the economy. The Commission found Mr. Ervin qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Family Court judge, for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2.
Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Stokes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Stokes was born in 1966. He is 45 years old and a resident of Taylors, South Carolina. Judge Stokes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Stokes. Judge Stokes demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Judge Stokes reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures. Judge Stokes testified he has not: (a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening; (b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator; (c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Stokes testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
The Commission found Judge Stokes to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. The Commission's investigation of Judge Stokes did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against Judge Stokes. The Commission's investigation of Judge Stokes did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Stokes has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Stokes was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Stokes reported that his rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, is BV.
Judge Stokes appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Stokes appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Stokes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991. I have maintained a practice in Family Court for the entire time I have been an attorney. Most of my cases have involved divorce and property distribution along with child custody. As with most attorneys, I have settled most of my cases. I attribute this to being able to explain the law that applies to the case to the client, so that settlement can be realistically pursued for the client. The law in these areas is usually quite settled and a good practitioner would be able to predict with reasonable accuracy what decision a court might render. Also, settlements have been further facilitated in Greenville because this county has mandatory mediation and the program has been very successful. If a case does not settle in mediation, then by that stage I am prepared for trial. In the adoption area, my office has not actively sought cases; however, I have done them on occasion. I have undertaken private adoptions, step-parent adoptions, and DSS adoptions. I currently have two active adoption cases. Most of my abuse and neglect cases have been DSS related. Our office has a policy that we actually handle the DSS cases assigned to us and rarely hire another attorney to take our place. Therefore, over the years, I have had exposure to multiple cases involving abuse, neglect, and termination of parental rights. Also, as a private attorney, I have been involved in several private actions involving termination of parental rights.
I have never had the opportunity to handle a juvenile criminal case. However, I have reviewed the procedure in preparing for this process and I have litigated several criminal matters, and as a magistrate I have heard hundreds of criminal matters so I feel very comfortable with the underlying criminal law and I think I am competent to apply the process in a juvenile case in Family Court.
The following are Judge Stokes's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled:
I was appointed a Greenville County Magistrate Judge in November 1996 and have served continuously since. The criminal jurisdiction is generally offenses not exceeding a fine of $500.00 (plus assessments) or 30 days imprisonment or both. The civil jurisdiction is matters where the amount in controversy does not exceed $7,500.00. The jurisdiction is unlimited in landlord/tenant matters.
I continued my practice of law while a continuing part-time judge from 1996 to the present at the firms listed in question 14. I have always been my own supervisor.
In the Family Court elections for May 2008, January 2009, and January 2010 I was not successful. On all occasions I was found qualified, but not nominated.
The Commission believes that Judge Stokes's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizens Committee found Judge Stokes to be "Qualified" for the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, physical health, mental stability, reputation, and experience. The Committee also found that Judge Stokes is "Well qualified" in the remaining criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, and judicial temperament. In regards to judicial temperament, the Committee stated: "The committee has been concerned during past screenings about the candidate's ability to have an even temperament. There have been reports of him being discourteous to litigants and lawyers. However, the candidate answered questions about this during this interview. He acknowledged errors in judgment in his early years as a magistrate but says he has improved his skills in this area. He has provided documents relating to mediation activities in the Magistrate's Court that indicate satisfaction by those who have participated in that process in the past six months. During our first interview with the candidate over two years ago, the candidate did not acknowledge any problem with temperament. He has now acknowledged this may have been a problem in the past but he has corrected it." Judge Stokes responded to this report by the Committee by providing a recent survey summary from the Magistrate's Court Mediation Program, July 2010 through January 2011. The survey indicates that 29.5% of those surveyed agreed that the court (Judge Stokes) was professional and courteous and 67.4% strongly agree that the court (Judge Stokes) was professional and courteous.
The Upstate Citizen's Committee also stated in regards to the evaluative criteria of reputation, "The committee has become aware, during previous screenings that the candidate has a reputation of being disrespectful of litigants and attorneys. However, this reputation evidence is approximately two years old. The witness who reported in prior screenings were contacted and reported they had not heard any specific instances of this type of behavior in the past year or so." Judge Stokes further reported:
I have a background that prepares me to be a family court judge. I have been a lower court judge for nearly fifteen years. During this time I have learn many things to do and not to do as a judge. What seems inconsequential to one person is a great insult to another. What one person understands easily another does not. A judge has to learn to "read" people to know best how to approach a party. This is an art and takes years to develop. Hopefully, I have already made all of my biggest mistakes. In the course of my career, I have had to learn several lessons in patience and humility. As a young judge I did not have enough of either. I am glad I now realize this fact and I am disappointed in myself that it took me so long to learn the lessons. I hope no person suffered irreparable harm due to my shortcomings and inexperience. If I were a magician I would like to erase and redo my first three to four years as a judge. Poor judgments from that time still cause repercussions today. However, I have had two blessings that have caused me to become what I believe now is a caring and compassionate judge. First, I had a true friend who had the fortitude to talk to me directly. He said I was on the same tract as another judge in our county who was not seen as calm, caring, and compassionate. I did not wish to be thought of as such. Secondly, I became the father of a child who suffers from a form of autism. He patterns every move he makes after significant people in his life. As his primary role model he patterns the most on me. This responsibility to teach him how to interact with others has caused me to become hypersensitive to others. As I said this has been a blessing as has my son. It has made me into a person who I have confidence in will do the proper actions and my son at almost 14 has become a good student, successful Boy Scout, and a person who relates well to others. Thus, I am thankful for these lessons and I believe that they have made me over the past ten years a judge that would serve well on any bench.
The Commission commented that Judge Stokes had ably practiced law for 20 years. They noted his dedicated public service in his local community. The Commission found Judge Stokes qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Family Court judge, for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission found the following candidates QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED:
Respectfully submitted: Received as information.
The following was received:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Legislative Audit Council Nominating Committee April 28, 2011 Pursuant to Section 2-15-20, the Legislative Audit Council Nominating Committee favorably report the following candidates with terms prescribed by law to the General Assembly for election to the Legislative Audit Council. The Nominating Committee consists of the following members of the House of Representatives, appointed by the Speaker, and members of the Senate, appointed by the President of the Senate. Sen. George E. Campsen III Rep. James H. Harrison Sen. Robert W. Hayes, Jr. Rep. William E. Sandifer III Sen. Kent M. Williams Rep. David J. Mack III The below listed candidates are hereby nominated for election by the General Assembly to the Legislative Audit Council. 1. Mr. Mallory Factor, to fill the remaining portion of a term to expire on June 30, 2011 and a full term to expire on June 30, 2017 2. Mr. Thomas F. Hartnett, for a term to expire June 30, 2015 3. Ms. Jane Pike Miller, for a term to expire June 30, 2013
Respectfully submitted, Received as information.
The following Bill was taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments: S. 431 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Rankin, Setzler, Campbell, Shoopman, Reese, Bright, Alexander, S. Martin, Fair, Cromer, Bryant, Elliott, O'Dell, Campsen, Ford, Rose, Lourie, Cleary, Verdin, McGill, Williams, Nicholson, Knotts, Land and Scott: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-61-70 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY AN INSURER AND COVERING A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL IN THIS STATE MUST BE BROADLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF COVERAGE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT WORK OF A CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL RESULTING IN PROPERTY DAMAGE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTES AN OCCURRENCE AS COMMONLY DEFINED IN LIABILITY INSURANCE AND IS NOT THE INTENDED OR EXPECTED CONSEQUENCE OF THE WORK OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL.
The following Bill was read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification: S. 643 (Word version) -- Senators Knotts, Reese, Thomas, Ford, Matthews, Williams, Campsen, Cromer, Campbell, O'Dell, Rose and Setzler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-5-2310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL EXHIBIT OF A MARINE MAMMAL IN THIS STATE AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE DISPLAY OF A WILD CAUGHT OR CAPTIVE-BRED DOLPHIN OR WHALE AND TO REQUIRE THE MARINE MAMMAL STRANDING NETWORK TO ATTEMPT TO REHABILITATE AND TO RELEASE ANY BEACH-STRANDED WHALE OR DOLPHIN AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES.
The following Bill was taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate: H. 3059 (Word version) -- Reps. Merrill, Stavrinakis, J. E. Smith and Whipper: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3376, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLES, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLE", TO RAISE THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT AVAILABLE EACH FISCAL YEAR AND DELETE ITS EXPIRATION DATE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE CREDIT MUST BE ALLOCATED TO ELIGIBLE CLAIMANTS DURING A FISCAL YEAR ON A FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVE BASIS.
At 10:10 a.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. COOPER, adjourned to meet at 12:00 noon, Wednesday, May 11.
This web page was last updated on Monday, November 21, 2011 at 9:45 A.M. |