-- of
Click here to see a list of stop words.
120th Session, 2013-2014 Journal of the House of Representatives
(Statewide Session)
The House assembled at 10:00 a.m..
Our thought for today is from Isaiah 1:19: "If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land." Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER. After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. HAYES moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of former representative and judge, Marion Hardy "Son" Kinon of Dillon, which was agreed to.
The following was received:
Report of Candidate Qualifications for Fall 2013
Date Draft Report Issued: Thursday, January 16, 2014 Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, January 21, 2014, at Noon.
January 16, 2014 Dear Members of the General Assembly: Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's Report of Candidate Qualifications. This Report is designed to assist you in determining how to cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with ascertaining whether judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench. In accordance with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated all judicial candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The Commission found all candidates discussed in this report to be qualified. The Commission's finding that a candidate is qualified means that the candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office and the Commission's evaluative criteria. The attached Report details each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 Noon on January 21, 2014. Members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate's qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until Tuesday, January 21, 2014. In summary, no member of the General Assembly should, orally or by writing, communicate about a candidate's candidacy until the time designated after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's Report of Candidate Qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report, please contact the Commission office at (803) 212-6623. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
January 16, 2014 Dear Fellow Members: This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial candidate's contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third parties contacting members on a candidate's behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Fall 2013 screening. Section 2-19-70(C) of the South Carolina Code contains strict prohibitions concerning candidates seeking or legislators giving their pledges of support or implied endorsement through an introduction prior to 48 hours after the release of the final report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (Commission). The purpose of this section was to ensure that members of the General Assembly had full access to the report prior to being asked by a candidate to pledge his or her support. The final sentence of Section 2-19-70(C) provides that "the prohibitions of this section do not extend to an announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the candidate detailing the candidate's qualifications" (emphasis added). Candidates may not, however, contact members of the Commission regarding their candidacy; please note that six members of the Commission also are legislators. In April 2000, the Commission determined that Section 2-19-70(C) means no member of the General Assembly should engage in any form of communication, written or verbal, concerning a judicial candidate before the 48-hour period expires following the release of the Commission's report. The Commission would like to clarify and reiterate that until at least 48 hours have expired after the Commission has released its final report of candidate qualifications to the General Assembly, only candidates, and not members of the General Assembly, are permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, or statements detailing the candidates' qualifications. The Commission would again like to remind members of the General Assembly that a violation of the screening law is likely a disqualifying offense and must be considered when determining a candidate's fitness for judicial office. Further, the law requires the Commission to report any violations of the pledging rules by members of the General Assembly to the House or Senate Ethics Committee, as may be applicable. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or any other matter pertaining to the judicial screening process, please do not hesitate to call Jane O. Shuler, Chief Counsel to the Commission, at 212-6629 (M-Th).
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. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted. The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experiences (lawyers, teachers, businessmen, bankers, and advocates for various organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review. The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental health, and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following: (1) survey of the bench and bar through Ballotboxonline; (2) SLED and FBI investigation; (3) credit investigation; (4) grievance investigation; (5) study of application materials; (6) verification of ethics compliance; (7) search of newspaper articles; (8) conflict of interest investigation; (9) court schedule study; (10) study of appellate record; (11) court observation; and (12) investigation of complaints. 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. The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another. Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the Canons, etc. is his or her completed and sworn questionnaire. 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. This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously, as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report, as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision. This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Supreme Court, Circuit Court, Family Court, and Administrative Law Court.
QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED The Honorable Costa M. Pleicones Chief Justice Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Justice Pleicones meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Justice Pleicones was born in 1944. He is 69 years old and a resident of Columbia, SC. Justice Pleicones provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1968. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Justice Pleicones. Justice Pleicones 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. Justice Pleicones reported that he has made $460.24 in campaign expenditures for: printing letters ($244.21); postage for letters ($92); to his administrative assistant to stuff envelopes ($17); for Piedmont Club Drop-in ($84.49); and to USPS for postage ($22.54).
Justice Pleicones testified that he has not:
Justice Pleicones 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 Justice Pleicones to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Justice Pleicones described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
Justice Pleicones reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
Justice Pleicones reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Justice Pleicones did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Justice Pleicones did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Justice Pleicones has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Justice Pleicones 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. Justice Pleicones reported that his last available rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was AV and had been at that level for a number of years. Justice Pleicones reported the following military service:
25 November 1968 - 1 March 1973, Active Duty US Army; 1 March 1973 - 1 March 1999, US Army Reserve; Colonel (0-6). Retired. Honorable.
Justice Pleicones appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Justice Pleicones appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Justice Pleicones was admitted to the SC Bar in 1968.
Justice Pleicones gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
At all times during my years as a lawyer my emphasis was heavily on trial practice.
Justice Pleicones reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows: *
Justice Pleicones reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:*
Justice Pleicones reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:* Justice Pleicones further reported that these percentages represent only matters in trial courts that were actually submitted to a fact finder for resolution. * The five-year period is 1986-91. I was elected to the bench in 1991 and have not practiced since. Justice Pleicones provided that he most often served as sole and/or chief counsel.
The following is Justice Pleicones' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
I believe this case was the first in the United States to judicially approve "caller ID" telephone service. Important constitutional questions were implicated e.g., right to privacy. I argued and won the case in the trial court, and was the principal author of the brief to the SC Supreme Court. I did not argue this case there, as I was pending swearing in to the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and the Court of Appeals in ruling that jurisdiction of a contractual agreement's voluntary nature was properly before the Family Court, and not the Circuit Court. I did not handle the trial, where my client did not prevail but did handle the appellate stage, with co-counsel. Our client prevailed, and the decision was helpful to the bench and bar in clarifying jurisdictional matters.
The Supreme Court held that punitive damages are not recoverable in a cause of action based solely upon the theory of strict liability. This question was certified to the Court by the United States District Court. I was involved only at the State Court as the author and proponent of an amicus brief filed on behalf of my client, a trade association of property and casualty writers.
In December of 1990, I tried this case in Common Pleas Court in Richland County and secured a large verdict for the plaintiff. The case is significant because on appeal the defendant's argument as to the non-viability of the cause of action (alienation of affections) was accepted by the Supreme Court, which prospectively did away with the cause of action. This did not affect my client's right to recovery. I represented Mr. Motes at trial and on appeal. He was convicted of murder largely upon the testimony of his estranged wife, who was allowed to testify over our objection. The case is significant because in interpreting our statute on first impression, the Supreme Court (and of course the trial judge) ruled that the privilege belonged to the testifying spouse, not the one testified against. The following is Justice Pleicones' account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
He stated, "I do not have access to the briefs in these cases owing to age or to physical separation from the repositories. I was the sole or a principal counsel in each case."
The following is Justice Pleicones' account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled: * * Owing to the age of these files and the fact of several intervening moves, I do not have access to the briefs. I will endeavor to find them and supplement this response. I was chief or sole counsel in each of these cases.
Justice Pleicones reported that he has held the following judicial offices:
Justice Pleicones provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
I wrote a dissent in this case explicating the "economic loss rule." The significance is that the dissent was subsequently adopted as the majority opinion in Sapp v. Ford Motor Co., 386 S.C. 143, 687 SC2d 47 (2009);
Articulation of the "public duty rule" in SC;
Affirming death penalty holding no deprivation of right to jury on sentencing following entry of an unconditional guilty plea. Case involved interpretation of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S. Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002);
Case involved the efficacy of policy language regarding offset of worker's compensation benefits against UIM coverage; Portion of opinion regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence. Justice Pleicones reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge: Officer (Colonel), United States Army reserve, 1973-99. Beginning in August 1993, I served as Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer from 1st United States Army to the SC National Guard and militia in SC. Prior to that I was Commander of the 12th Military Law Center. The commanders of 1st Army and of the 120th ARCOM were my supervisors. All duties were military in nature. Justice Pleicones further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies: 1982 primary election for Richland County Council; 1994 and 1995 campaigns for Supreme Court. (9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Justice Pleicones temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Midlands Citizens Committee found Justice Pleicones to be "Qualified" as to constitutional qualifications. He was found "Well Qualified" as to physical health, mental stability, character, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated, "Justice Pleicones is respected and even admired by his colleagues and the Bar. He combines a fine intellect with compassion for others and passion for his job. He also has a vision for the future of the SC court system." The Committee stated in summary, "He is eminently qualified to be Chief Justice of the SC Supreme Court and a credit to the SC Judiciary." Justice Pleicones is married to Donna Singletary Pleicones. He has two children.
Justice Pleicones reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Justice Pleicones provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Justice Pleicones further reported:
My parents were the best people I ever knew. Our family finances were modest, but my parents stressed respect, hard work, and the importance of education. I took those lessons to heart and have always sought to treat everyone with dignity and respect. I work hard and take my position, but not myself - very seriously. I believe I am a very good judge. I believe that as the administrative head of the unified judicial system, the Chief Justice's primary roles are to set policy, oversee the assignment of personnel and the allocation of the system's resources, and to keep abreast of proposed legislative action that may impact the administration of the courts. As head of the unified court system the Chief Justice must work with the General Assembly in areas of shared responsibility such as rules of practice and procedure, and in the area of budgeting. Inasmuch as the Chief Justice is constitutionally charged with appointing a court administrator, he should allow that person to attend to the day to day operations of the system, and not micro-manage. Obviously, there will be frequent contact with court administration as dozens of administrative orders must be issued on a monthly basis. The Chief Justice is CEO, and the Court Administrator is in charge of operations. The "buck" stops with the Chief Justice who must accept responsibility for the policies implemented by court administration at his direction. To that end, the Chief Justice must be available to meet with the court system's stakeholders to address their concerns, and must provide a forum in which citizens and other interested individuals may make their concerns and suggestions known. [2] As a follow-up, describe your managerial style, focusing on what you perceive to be your strengths and weaknesses as a manager and leader. Managerial style must be tailored to meet the needs and mission of the entity being managed. As a military commander, I managed a unit of more than one hundred, while as a Justice of the Supreme Court I manage a staff of three. My experience has prepared me both for the "big picture" role of administrative head of the unified judicial system, and for the more intimate role of the Chief Justice as he relates to the individuals who work within the court system. Among my strengths as a leader are the ability to gather knowledgeable people, quickly grasp the details of the problem, and come to a just, clear, and firm decision. While I am decisive, I do not make snap judgments, but remain calm and respectful of those whose input I have sought. It is my perception that I am well-regarded by those I have managed and those I have led. My primary weakness as a manager is that I tend to expect perfection from others because I am somewhat of a perfectionist myself. Over time I have learned that so long as the leader sets a good example, clearly communicates his expectations, and treats the individual with respect, the person being managed will rise to the occasion. I therefore have learned not to require perfection, but I to expect every individual I manage to put forth his best efforts. I have no tolerance for rudeness and intimidating behavior. If the most productive person on the team were rude and overbearing, I would not tolerate such behavior.
I am confident that my experience amply qualifies me to manage the administrative needs of the unified judicial system. The judicial branch of government is unusual in that the bulk of our budget is comprised of salaries and associated benefits mandated by law. I believe it is a tribute to our conservative management practices that the court system has operated successfully on the austere budgets which economic conditions have required in recent years. Nonetheless, years of poor economic growth have led to an unhealthy dependence on grants, court fees and fines. Addressing the questions asked in reverse order, I would like to express appreciation for the General Assembly's responsiveness to the needs of the unified judicial system in recent years. I nevertheless believe the time is right to jointly explore the feasibility of a more stable funding mechanism. At present, the judicial system is dependent, in large part, on fees, fines, and assessments imposed upon those who, either by choice or necessity, are involved in litigation. These assessments are quite burdensome, and I believe we have reached a saturation point with regard to user fees. An increase in these fees will have the effect of denying many of our citizens access to the courts. I am also concerned whether we may be pushing the limits of the burden we place on lawyers to accept under-funded court appointments.
If we are able to increase the monies available to the judicial system, my first priority would be to complete, continue, and complement most of the technological innovations begun by Chief Justice Toal. The judicial caseload in South Carolina courts is amongst the highest in the nation, and technology is required in order to manage that caseload and fully distribute our limited resources. Second, I would seek to alleviate the burden on our family court judges. While it may not be feasible to provide each judge with a law clerk, I would explore with these judges how they could best benefit from additional staffing. Finally, I would like to be able to give a salary increase, with non-judicial personnel being the first priority. We are fortunate in the judicial system that our core employees, those in the appellate court clerk's offices, our office of Finance and Personnel, and our courts' permanent legal staff, tend to spend their careers with the court system. The benefits to the system from these employees' hard work and institutional knowledge cannot be overstated, and I would like to be able to reward their dedication with a salary increase. The most significant challenge to the court system in the foreseeable future is the increase in the number of cases ("the docket") and the limited resources available to deal with these cases. The two most obvious ways to deal with these challenges are through docket management systems and by the increased use and availability of alternative dispute mechanisms. We must be careful in implementing the first not to lose sight of the human element, and in implementing the second not to tread upon one of the foundations of our liberty, the jury trial. Docket management and the timely disposition of cases is a problem in all courts, not merely trial courts, but also in our two appellate courts. We need to lead by example in the Supreme Court, and I believe we can effect some changes by streamlining our internal processes without compromising the quality of review. Further, just as we set benchmarks for other tribunals, the appellate courts must set and meet their own benchmarks. There will always be cases where the decision-making process must and should be lengthy, as important questions of policy are debated and differing opinions are circulated. The Supreme Court should, in any event, lead by example and dispose of all matters that come before our court without undue delay. In terms of resource allocation, the greatest challenge I see for the foreseeable future is the finite amount of courtroom space available in county courthouses. We cannot require counties to find more space as they have their own budgetary constraints and priorities. This is an area where technology, docket management, and alternative dispute methods converge.
Finally, I am most concerned about the state of our family courts. People, both children and adults, are at their most vulnerable when involved in family court proceedings, and these difficult and gut-wrenching cases also take a toll on our family court judges. The resources that must be brought to bear on family court issues are not found solely within the judicial system, but involve diverse agencies. We must all work together to keep children safe, and if possible out of the adult criminal justice system. I will serve as Chief Justice until December 31, 2016, the end of the year in which I will attain the age of seventy-two. I am confident that I can achieve my goals in this time frame, as over the past thirty years the average tenure of a Chief Justice, excluding that of the present incumbent, has been thirty-two months.
I have several specific goals, all of which are designed to increase public confidence in our court system. First, I would continue to improve the processing time for cases in all trial and appellate courts. Second, I would like to explore alternatives to our current Bar examination structure. For many years I have served as the Court's representative to the National Conference of Bar Examiners, and have already begun a dialogue with the current Court about changes that would enhance confidence in our system and enable South Carolina lawyers to more easily gain membership in the Bars of other jurisdictions. Finally, I believe we need to follow up on the recent ABA study regarding our attorney and judicial disciplinary system. In that regard, I believe public confidence can be enhanced by increased transparency and by speedier disposition of disciplinary charges. In my view collegiality on an appellate court results from the personal character, integrity, and mutual respect displayed by each member of the court, most importantly the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is the administrative head of the unified judicial system, but is also the head of a "family" of judges numbering more than four hundred. The candor, courtesy, and caring exhibited by the Chief Justice is his primary tool for fostering collegiality in the family. Within the Supreme Court itself, the Chief Justice is but one of five equals in the conference room, and must set the tone for cordial interpersonal relationships. As everyone who reads our opinions knows, I frequently write separately, whether individually or in concert with a colleague. My belief is that each justice has been elected to conscientiously offer his or her unbiased opinion as to the law. Professional disagreement should not, and never has from my standpoint, become the basis for personal acrimony. Lock-step accord is not a necessary ingredient of collegiality. Courtesy, candor, and mutual respect are the components of collegiality. The renowned law professor Bernard Metzger has observed: "If you have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable, then you have discovered the secret of getting along - whether it be business, family relations, or life itself." As Chief Justice I will continue to strive to conduct myself in the manner described by Professor Metzger, in my interaction with colleagues.
As regards the extended judicial system it is likewise incumbent upon the Chief Justice to lead by example. When everyone understands that the head of the system exhibits and expects courtesy and respect to all, it is likely to result.
The Commission commented on Justice Pleicones' wide and varied experience as a City Judge, Circuit Court Judge, and practicing attorney before becoming an Associate Justice thirteen years ago. The Commission also noted Justice Pleicones' firm grasp of legal theory and his great intellect. Finally, the Commission commented that Justice Pleicones would be imminently qualified to serve as Chief Justice if chosen to do so by the General Assembly. The Commission found Justice Pleicones qualified and nominated him for election as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Chief Justice Toal meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Chief Justice Toal was born in 1943. She is 70 years old and a resident of Columbia, SC. Chief Justice Toal provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1968. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Chief Justice Toal. Chief Justice Toal 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. Chief Justice Toal reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Chief Justice Toal testified that she has not:
Chief Justice Toal 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 Chief Justice Toal to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Chief Justice Toal described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a) 1-25-08 SC Bar 23rd Annual Criminal Law Update-Part 2;
(a) 1-15-09 Charleston School of Law-State Constitutional Reform in the New South;
(a) 1-22-10 SC Bar Criminal Law Update-Part 2;
(a) 1-21-11 SC Bar Criminal Law Update;
(a) 1-17-12 John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court-The Importance of an Independent Judiciary;
(a) 1-16-13 Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte-Appellate Practice in SC; Chief Justice Toal reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
(a) 2-23-90 - I have lectured on the topic of "Post-Election Protest Procedure" at the Election Law 1990 Seminar;
(a) 3-4-91 - I have lectured on the topic of "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy" at the SC Bar CLE Division's Bridge the Gap Program for new admittees to the SC Bar;
(a) 5-1-92 - I have lectured on the topic of "Appellate Review of the Death Penalty Case" at the Judicial Conference of the US Military Court of Appeals;
(a) 1-15-93 - I have lectured on the topic of "Record on Appeal - Bench Perspective" at the Appellate Practice under SC Appellate Court Rules Seminar;
(a) 2-25-94 - I have lectured on the topic of "Post-Election Protest Procedure including Hill and Fielding" at the Election Law Ethics and Governmental Accountability Seminar;
(a) 3-6-95 - I have lectured on the topic of "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy" at the SC Bar CLE Division's Bridge the Gap Program for new admittees to the SC Bar;
(a) 1-26-96 - I have delivered the keynote address on "Contemporary Issues for the Criminal Law Practitioner" at the Eleventh Annual Criminal Law Update Seminar;
(a) 3-10/11-97 - I have made "Opening Remarks" and lectured on the topic of "Essential Tips for Practice in SC Courts: Appellate Courts" at the SC Bar CLE Division's 1997 Winter Bridge the Gap Program for new admittees to the SC Bar;
(a) 3-10-98 - I have lectured on the topic of "Essential Tips for Practice in SC Courts: Appellate Courts" at the SC Bar CLE Division's 1998 Winter Bridge the Gap Program for new admittees to the SC Bar;
(a) 1-15-99 - I have lectured on the topics of "Commentaries on the Art of Advocacy" and "Tips on Oral Advocacy and Brief Writing," and participated in a Panel on the topic of "The Legal Profession in the Twenty-First Century" at the The Art of Advocacy CLE sponsored by the SC Bar CLE Division;
(a) 5-3-00 - I have given a "Chief's Report" at the SC Family Court Judges Association's 2000 Family Court Judges Conference;
(a) 3-13-01 - I have lectured on the topic of "Modernization of the Court System" at the Richland County Bar Association Luncheon;
(a) 2-15-02 - I have lectured on the topic of "Judicial Department Update" at the Masters-in-Equity Conference;
(a) 1-23-03 - I have lectured on the topic of "New Directions in Court Technology and Case Management" at the SC Bar Annual Convention's Technology Seminar;
(a) 1-22-04 - I have lectured on the topic of "Tips from the Bench: What Every Lawyer Needs to Know and Do to Be an Effective Appellate Advocate" at the SC Bar's 2004 Convention's Trial and Advocacy Section Seminar;
(a) 1-21-05 - I have lectured on the topic of "A View from the Bench" at the SC Bar CLE Division's 20th Annual Criminal Law Update;
(a) 1-27-06 - I have lectured on the topic of "A View from the Bench" at the SC Bar CLE Division's 21st Annual Criminal Law Update;
(a) 1-26-07 - I have lectured on the topic of "A View from the Bench" at the SC Bar CLE Division's 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update;
(a) 1-25-08 - I have lectured on the topic of "A View from the Bench" at the SC Bar CLE Division's 23rd Annual Criminal Law Update-Part 2;
(a) 1-15-09 - I have participated in a panel discussion on the topic of "The Judicial Selection Process" at the Charleston School of Law's seminar, State Constitutional Reform in the New South;
(a) 1-22-10 - I have lectured on the topic of "A View from the Bench" at the SC Bar CLE Division's Criminal Law Update-Part 2;
(a) 1-21-11 - I have lectured on the topic of "A View from the Bench" at the SC Bar CLE Division's Criminal Law Update;
(a) 1-17-12 - I have lectured on the topic of "The Importance of an Independent Judiciary" at the John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court's CLE Program;
(a) 1-16-13 - I have participated in a panel discussion on the topic of "The End is Near: Insight from the Bench" at Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte's seminar, Keep Calm and Appeal On: Appellate Practice in SC;
Chief Justice Toal reported that she has published the following: The Commission's investigation of Chief Justice Toal did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Chief Justice Toal did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Chief Justice Toal has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Chief Justice Toal 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. Chief Justice Toal reported that her last available rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was AV.
Chief Justice Toal reported that she has held the following public offices:
I always timely filed report.
Chief Justice Toal appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Chief Justice Toal appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Chief Justice Toal was admitted to the SC Bar in 1968.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
Haynsworth was the largest law firm in SC when I began my practice in 1968 as the sixteenth lawyer in the firm. I worked under several of the partners on a variety of corporate, trusts, real estate and defense litigation issues. I did research and assisted in document drafting for the first public stock offering for Daniel Construction Company, pension and profit sharing plans for J. P. Stevens, Alice Mills, Hollingsworth on Wheels, Daniel Construction Company, Alister G. Furman Co., Caine Realty and many other corporations; trust and wills for Homozel Mickel Daniel, The Daniel Foundation and others; corporation certifications for CT Corporation Systems; and defense litigation in products liability, workers' compensation, automobile liability and medical malpractice cases. When I came to the Belser Law Firm in 1970, it was comprised of four partners and three associates. It was an old Columbia law firm, about medium size for Richland County at that time. It handled a variety of litigation. On the civil side, the firm did insurance defense work, construction litigation, some plaintiff's litigation, real estate closings, and corporate work. The firm also handled criminal defense cases. In those days, before public defenders, most litigators did criminal work. As a young lawyer, about 30 percent of my work the first years with the Belser firm was criminal trial and appellate work. However, I also worked on many civil cases and appeals to the SC Supreme Court and to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As I developed my own clientele, I expanded our base to include more plaintiff's cases, administrative law cases, domestic litigation, and employment cases, but continued to also be involved in our defense insurance work, construction litigation, corporate matters and criminal defense cases.
I was privileged to appear on a frequent basis in all levels of trial and appellate courts in this state, including trials or appeals before the Magistrates Court, County Court, Probate Court, Master-In-Equity, Circuit Court, Family Court, SC Court of Appeals and SC Supreme Court. I also had considerable experience as a litigator in United States District Court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and one appearance as co-counsel before the United States Supreme Court. My twenty years of experience as a practicing lawyer included a fairly even mix of plaintiff and defense work, criminal trial work, and complex constitutional litigation. I wrote many trial and appellate briefs at all court levels. I also had considerable administrative law experience in litigation involving environmental matters, federal and state procurement, hospital certificates of need, employment matters and election matters.
Chief Justice Toal reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her service on the bench as follows: *
Chief Justice Toal reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her service on the bench as follows: *
Chief Justice Toal reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her service on the bench as follows: *
Chief Justice Toal provided that she most often served as sole counsel, but provided a more detailed report: *
The following is Chief Justice Toal's account of her five most significant litigated matters prior to her service on the bench:
I was the sole counsel for Defendant Bruckner. A jury trial for two and one-half weeks resulted in a verdict for Defendants. There was a seven-count complaint alleging medical malpractice, alienation of affections, criminal conversation, intentional infliction of emotional harm, conspiracy and fraud. There was considerable pre-trial discovery and pre-trial court appearances in the United States District Court of SC and for the District Court of Ohio.
I participated in various trials and motion hearings and writing of pleadings and briefs in this action by a female law student who was appointed by her Senator as a page in the SC Senate but denied employment by the Clerk of the Senate because of her sex. The Fourth Circuit held this practice unconstitutional and established the right for women to serve as Senate pages.
I was co-counsel. I assisted in all pre-trial activity including extensive witness interviews and hearings, and in the trial of the case. This was a death penalty case involving murder during the commission of an armed robbery. Shortly before trial, the death penalty was abandoned and after two days of trial, a plea to voluntary manslaughter was offered and accepted.
This case involved two and one-half weeks of trial of four co-defendants accused of embezzlement of monies from Fort Jackson Post Exchange. I was sole counsel for Adams. My Defendant and one other received jury verdicts of not guilty. The other two Defendants were convicted, which convictions were later overturned by the Fourth Circuit. I was co-counsel and participated in all phases. I represented the Plaintiff. The case involved personal injury resulting from the derailment of an Amtrak passenger train in Hamlet, N.C. The case took over a year of intensive discovery in North Carolina, Connecticut, Washington, DC, and other locations and numerous court appearances. The case was ultimately settled for an amount which is sealed, but which exceeded one million dollars.
The following is Chief Justice Toal's account of five civil appeals she has personally handled prior to her service on the bench:
I wrote the brief and participated in the argument. This decision set forth rules for construction of the "Retaliatory Statute" which involves license fees and taxes paid by a foreign life insurance company and also set forth SC's approach to retroactive legislation.
I was co-counsel at the trial and wrote the brief. I argued the case to the Supreme Court. This represented an important analysis by our Supreme Court of the doctrine of transmutation. Review Panel, (Tall Tower I), 294 S.C. 225, 363 S.E.2d 683 (1987); Charleston Television, Inc. v. S. C. Budget and Control Board, (Tall Tower II), 296 S.C. 444, 373 S.E.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1988), rev'd, 301 S.C. 468, 392 S.E.2d 671 (1990).
These appeals all arose out of a procurement protest filed by Charleston Television, Inc., whereby it challenged SCETV's award of a long-term television tower lease to Tall Tower, Inc. The matter was tried before the Procurement Review Panel and in Circuit Court in 1986. Tall Tower was argued before the SC Supreme Court September 24, 1987. I was lead counsel for trial and argued the Tall Tower I appeal. I participated and/or wrote briefs for Tall Tower I and II in 1987 and 1988. Tall Tower II was argued to the Court of Appeals January 19, 1988. I participated in these arguments. I did not participate in Tall Tower II as it came before the Supreme Court after I was elected. These cases provided significant new analyses of state administrative law, scope of judicial review, rules of state procurement and separation of powers.
I participated in the trial and many lengthy pre-trial motion hearings, the writing of briefs for District Court, Fourth Circuit, and US Supreme Court until I left private practice March 16, 1988. I presented the argument twice at the Fourth Circuit. This case represented the third largest eastern Indian land claim. The case involved federal Indian Law, constitutional issues, and state property law. After my participation ended, this litigation continued at the Fourth Circuit and in the US Supreme Court. This case has now been settled by legislation adopted by the United States and State of SC in 1993. I was co-counsel at trial before the Public Service Commission and in Circuit Court. I wrote the brief and argued the case to the Supreme Court of SC. This case analyzed the requirements of the SC Administrative Procedure Act regarding the fact finding at the administrative level and is frequently cited.
The following is Chief Justice Toal's account of the criminal appeals she has personally handled prior to her service on the bench:
I participated in the trial and wrote the appellate briefs and participated in the argument before the Supreme Court of SC. This decision set forth a major restatement of the law of search and seizure in this state.
These decisions set forth detailed rules with regard to the State's death penalty statute. I participated in the submission of an amicus curiae brief, which discussed from a legislative perspective issues regarding proportionality in sentencing and other issues. This was a habeas corpus proceeding for a state prisoner in which a new trial was obtained where the jury had been improperly influenced by information which came to a juror outside the trial of the case. This decision set forth guidelines for when the "jury room may be invaded" to determine whether the jury received extra trial information.
Chief Justice Toal reported that she has held the following judicial offices:
Chief Justice Toal provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions: Chief Justice Toal further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
I filed for the position of Associate Justice of the SC Supreme Court in 1984 and in 1985. In each instance, I was screened and found qualified, but withdrew before election. These positions were filled by Justice A. Lee Chandler, elected May 9, 1984, and Justice Ernest A. Finney, Jr., elected April 3, 1985.
The Commission believes that Chief Justice Toal's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Midlands Citizens Committee found Chief Justice Toal to be "Qualified" as to constitutional qualifications and "Well Qualified" as to ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated, "Chief Justice Toal is a dynamo with huge intellect and a clear vision of the future for the SC court system. She is responsible for many innovations and has plans for many more. She has been and continues to be a force for positive change in our court system." The Committee stated in its summary, "She is eminently qualified for the position she now holds." A complaint was filed against Chief Justice Toal by Dr. Marie-Therese H. Assa'ad-Faltas. Finding no merit in the complaint after reviewing the complaint as to the candidate's character, competency, or ethics, the Judicial Merit Selection Commission dismissed the complaint. Chief Justice Toal is married to William Thomas Toal. She has two children.
Chief Justice Toal reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Liaison, 2009 - Present.
Chief Justice Toal provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: St. Joseph's Catholic Church
Lector (Lay Reader); Phi Beta Kappa Order of the Coif Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity ODK Leadership Fraternity Mortar Board Leadership Fraternity
Kosmos Club; FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board, Liaison, 2009 - Present; American Inns of Court Foundation, Board of Trustees, 2008-09 Representative, 2008 - Present; National Center for State Courts, Board of Directors, Chair, 2007-08 Conference of Chief Justices Board of Directors, 2001 - 02, 2003 - 06 President, 2007-2008; Agnes Scott College Board of Trustees, 1997 - 2008; Kosmos Club, 1996 - Present; USC Bicentennial Commission, 1999 - 2001; Women Helping Women Achieve, USC Women's Athletic Programs, 1998 - 2006; Chair, SC Rhodes Scholar Selection Committee, 1994; ABA Presidential Working Group on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children and Their Families, 1993; SC Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization, 1992 - Present; Chair, SC Juvenile Justice Task Force, 1992 - 94; New York University, Appellate Judges Seminar, 1988; Trustee, Columbia Art Museum, 1980 - 85; SC Workers' Compensation Study Committee, 1978 - 88; Board of Visitors, Clemson University, 1978; Founder, First Chairman, Shandon Neighborhood Council, 1972 - 74;
SC Human Affairs Commission, 1972 - 74; Celebration of Inspiring Women, Women in Philanthropy and Leadership for Coastal Carolina University, 2013; Beacon of Justice Jurist of the Year, SEABOTA Southeast Chapter, 2011; Great Women, Great Chiefs, Albany Law School, 2011; Sandra Day O'Connor Award for the Advancement of Civics Education, National Center for State Courts, 2010; Pursuit of Justice Award, ABA Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, 2008; Honorary Doctor of Laws, Converse College, 2008; Honorary Doctor of Laws, Charleston School of Law, 2007; Richland County School District 1 Hall of Fame Award, 2005; Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award, American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession, 2004; Government Technology Top 25 Doers, Dreamers and Drivers, 2002; Center for Digital Government, In the Arena Award, 2002; Honorary Doctor of Law, University of SC, 2000; Honorary Doctor of Law, The Citadel, 1999; SC Trial Lawyers Association, Portrait Honoree, 1995; SC Women Lawyers Association, Jean Galloway Bissell Award, 1995; Richland County Bar Association (SC), John W. Williams Award, 1994; Dreher High School Hall of Fame, 1994; Congaree Girl Scout Council Woman of Distinction, 1993; SC Public Relations Society of America, Citizen of the Year, 1992; Honorary Doctor of Laws, Columbia College, 1992; Agnes Scott College, Outstanding Alumnae Award, 1991; University of Notre Dame Award, 1991; Algernon Sidney Sullivan Award, University of SC, 1991; Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, College of Charleston, 1990; University of SC Mortar Board Woman of the Year, 1989; SC Pharmacists Association Legislator of the Year, 1985; SC Municipal Association DSA Award, 1980; Columbia Record, Ten for the Future, 1976; Greenville News Outstanding Legislator of the Year Award, 1976; Recipient, Columbia Jaycees DSA Award, 1976; Columbia BPW Career Woman of the Year, 1974. Chief Justice Toal further reported: It is a rare privilege given few in life to have been allowed to serve as an Associate Justice and as Chief Justice on the SC Supreme Court for the past 25 years. Today I am still filled with the same excitement and love for my work with which I began my service on March 17, 1988. I believe I have been a productive member of our Court. I have written approximately 1,150 majority opinions for our court in the 25 years of my tenure. I have also written approximately 130 dissenting opinions. The opinions I have written for the Court have addressed virtually every area of the law. I have prepared opinions for the Court analyzing and deciding issues related to the United States Constitution and the SC Constitution. I have written opinions interpreting both federal and state legislation. My opinions have ranged from those involving criminal appeals, civil appeals, appeals from administrative agencies (including, but not limited to, the Worker's Compensation Commission, the SC Public Service Commission, the SC Health and Human Services Finance Commission, the SC Department of Revenue, the State Crop Pest Commission, and the SC Coastal Council), election contests, domestic appeals, and appeals arising from probate court. I have written opinions for the Court addressing certified questions from Federal District Courts. I have written several opinions for the Court where the death penalty was at issue for the appellant. I have written opinions for the Court in which the appellant was attacking an act of the legislature as unconstitutional (including, but not limited to, the SC Tort Claims Act, certain tax commission regulations, the Video Gaming Act, and certain sections of the probate code). I have written opinions for the Court that have become important precedents regarding the admissibility of certain evidence and regarding both civil and criminal procedures. I read and independently research, where appropriate, every matter that comes before our Court. I participate actively in Continuing Legal Education Seminars as a teacher and as a student. As an Associate Justice, I was assigned several special projects by each of the Chief Justices under whom I have served. These projects included:
1989-90 Chair and Co-Drafter of the new SC Appellate Court Rules, submitted to the General Assembly in 1990, made effective 9-1-90, the first major revision of the rules since the mid 1970's; 1992-94 Chair, SC Juvenile Justice Task Force created with the encouragement of Governor Carroll Campbell and US District Judge Joseph Anderson to study the Juvenile Justice Department and suggest lower cost, more effective alternative programs for the confinement of juveniles who pose a risk to the community and rehabilitation of convicted juveniles. The resulting Task Force Report was presented to the Governor, the General Assembly and Judge Anderson; 1993-94 Chair, Task Force for Adoption of SC Rules of Evidence patterned on the Federal Rules of Evidence. This was a large research and drafting project undertaken by the Court and its staff attorneys. The finished product, including Court drafted Reporters Comments, was submitted to the 1995 General Assembly and became effective September 3, 1995. SC became the 36th state to adopt a form of the Federal Rules of Evidence; 1992-2000 Court liaison with Budget and Control Board, DSS, Clerks of Court and the Governor's Office on implementation of a computerized Child Support Enforcement System; 1992-2000 Court supervisor of our new Information Technology Unit. We are proceeding, with support from the General Assembly, to computerize our judges' offices statewide. As Chief Justice, I have taken very seriously my responsibility under Canon 4. I travel the state speaking to all manner of audiences - business, law enforcement, school children, lawyers, church groups, civic organizations, judges of all levels, local government leaders, and other community groups. I have given hundreds of addresses in my judicial career discussing the judicial system and its impact on our society. I have chosen to highlight the use of technology to improve the delivery of justice, especially in rural SC. Electronic communication, research, and management are now used extensively in our state as a result of my efforts. We have completed an Internet-based Case Management System for Magistrates, Circuit Court and Appellate Courts. We are now building an electronic filing system for trial and appellate courts. The Judicial Branch has been recognized statewide and nationally for our innovations in the use of technology in our courts. In October 2003, I gave the keynote address for the National Center for State Courts Court Technology Conference (CTC8) in Kansas City, Missouri. In my one-hour presentation, I told the SC story with great pride as a model for other states. Greater professionalization of the Summary Court system, both Magistrate Court and Municipal Court, has been another focus of my administration. All levels of court are now provided with WestLaw research, funded by the SC Judicial Department. We negotiated a statewide contract, provided special templates for use by Magistrates, and provided the WestLaw system at our expense. We have upgraded judicial education, certification and technical training for the Summary Court bench. We also placed on line all forms and the multi-volume bench book. Magistrates are able to download the latest forms and keep much more current with the changes in the laws that affect their courts. A closer working relationship with the 46 county Clerks of Court has been another strong point of emphasis by me. The SC Judicial Department has obtained several federal grants, which have provided some new computer and printer equipment for each Clerk of Court. All 46 clerks now have a Web page. These Web pages are the portal for an Internet-based, statewide Case Management System for Magistrates Court and Circuit Court (Common Pleas and General Sessions), which is now deployed in all 46 counties. I made elimination of the large backlog in production of Circuit and Family Court transcripts by our Court Reporters a top priority when I became Chief. Some cases were over two years from request. We completely reworked our management and assignment techniques. We revised, updated and republished the Court Reporters manual. We increased the per page fee for transcripts for the first time in many years. The backlog has been eliminated, and the system is functioning well.
I have formed a strong partnership with the Solicitors, Public Defenders and the Law Enforcement community to focus on improving the backlog of cases in General Sessions Court. These backlogs cost the counties thousands of dollars in jail expenses for those awaiting trial who are not out on bond. The victims, defendants and the community all suffer when these criminal cases are not resolved. Large backlogs also send negative messages to the offender community about whether the state is serious about enforcing its laws.
I am personally involved in extensive teaching activities. I have also continued to author scholarly articles and books on legal topics. Some historical context is helpful in describing the constitutional responsibility of SC's Chief Justice. As the presiding officer of this state's highest appellate court, the Supreme Court of SC, the Chief Justice, with the assistance of the Clerk of Court and the staff of the Supreme Court, oversees agendas and terms of court. As the Chief Administrative Officer of the Judicial Branch, the Chief Justice supervises the operation of the entire statewide court system. Prior to 1973, SC's statewide court system consisted of five Supreme Court justices and 16 Circuit Court judges. Other court business was conducted by a hodgepodge of county courts created by county legislative delegations, popularly elected probate courts and magistrate courts, and masters-in-equity courts whose judges were selected by the senator or by county delegations. The trial terms of circuit courts were set by the General Assembly. In the late 1960s, the General Assembly created a constitutional modernization commission to recommend article-by-article revision modernization of the SC Constitution of 1895. The West Commission, as it was known, was comprised of legislative leaders, prominent lawyers, business leaders, and academics. The Commission recommended wholesale revision of Article V, the Judicial Article. The guiding concept of judicial reform was the creation of a unified court system administered by the Chief Justice. Hodgepodge courts would be eliminated, and legislative control of the day-to-day administration of courts would be relinquished. The General Assembly would elect all statewide judges. Masters-in-equity and Magistrates would be appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Probate judges would continue to be popularly elected. In 1972, modernized Article V was adopted by the people of SC. It was ratified by the General Assembly in 1973. It then took another four years for the General Assembly to adopt implementing legislation. The circuit court was expanded and a statewide family court system was created. Our modern day SC Constitution sets forth the duties of the Chief Justice. Article V Section 2 provides for a five member Supreme Court presided over by the Chief Justice or, in his absence, the senior Associate Justice. Article V Section 5 provides for the administrative responsibilities of the Chief Justice. The Chief is the administrative head of the unified judicial system. He is required to appoint an administrator of the courts and authorized to appoint such assistants as he deems necessary to administer the courts of the State. The Chief Justice is required to set the terms of court of any court and to assign judges for any court in the unified system. Pursuant to Article V Section 7, the Chief Justice is also required to supervise the setting of terms of court for the Court of Appeals. Over the years since the 1970s, the Chief Justice has become responsible for the administration of a trial and appellate court system of increased complexity. The Supreme Court itself includes the Office of the Clerk of Court, the Chief Staff Attorney, the Board of Bar Examiners, the Reporter, and the Supreme Court Library. The Clerk of Court operates as the Chief Administrative Officer for the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice interacts daily with the Clerk and the Court's divisions. These activities are a mixture of decisions made as the Court's presiding officer regarding motions, scheduling, briefing and the like, and decisions made as the Supreme Court's administrative officer involving everything from personnel matters to management of the courthouse physical plant.
Beyond the administration of the Supreme Court itself, the Chief is involved on a daily basis in management of scheduling of terms of court assignment of judges, financial and budget matters, emergency disciplinary matters, information technology policy, and response to inquiries from the other two branches and the general public, interaction with individual judges across the state, presentations to lawyers, judges and members of the general public and interaction with elected officials and staff from both the Legislative and Executive branches. When I became Chief Justice, I created a management structure for the Judicial Branch which consists of six directors: Director of Court Administration, Clerk of the Supreme Court, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Director of Finance and Personnel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Director of Information Technology. These directors meet at least once a month to discuss key administrative issues and initiatives. The meetings are staffed by the Executive Assistant to the Chief Justice. Information is exchanged as to the operation of the court system and solutions are developed collaboratively. As Chief, I meet with each of the directors many times each week to provide guidance and final decision on court operations. The Chief Justice initiates policy initiatives and budgetary planning. In addition, the Chief Justice regularly interacts with the administrative staff. The Chief Justice is responsible for preparing the annual budget for submission to the Governor's Office and presentation to the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees. The Chief Justice also supervises the administration of expenditures under the current fiscal year's operational appropriations. Setting of terms of Court for Family and Circuit Court and appointment of Chief Administrative Judges for these courts and County Chief Administrative Magistrate Judges is made on a six-month basis by order of the Chief Justice. On a daily basis, I sign orders adjusting assignments of magistrates, family court judges, circuit court judges, senior active judges as recusals, illness or emergency needs may require. Disciplinary and personnel supervision of judges and non-judge judicial personnel require weekly interaction between the Chief Justice and the directors. The management of SC's courts enjoys a strong, national reputation for efficiency and fairness despite the fact that we devote a smaller amount of our judicial budget to administrative functions than the majority of states. My biggest weakness on the administrative side is my tendency to try to "do it all myself." Most of the time I have served as Chief Justice, the State has suffered from a series of financial challenges that have made me reluctant to hire additional administrative personnel. The exception has been in the area of information technology. When I became Chief Justice, I was faced with large trial backlogs and lack of any standardized method of managing the State's trial dockets. Most court records were still managed by hand with paper records and indexes. Automation was a clear necessity if we were to achieve more efficiency with dwindling state financial resource for the courts. The development of a statewide automated case management system for each county Clerk of Court, all Summary Courts and the two appellate courts has been my major achievement in bringing modern organization to the way courts do business in SC.
Our Internet-based trial and appellate case management system is now fully deployed. This system was built almost entirely with federal funding. It is a model for the country. When I began as Chief Justice 13 years ago, the state annually spent about $46 million out of a $5 billion budget to operate the third branch of government. Almost all of this annual appropriation was general revenue funding. Today, the annual budget of the Judicial Department is approximately $65 million. About $45 million is appropriated from general revenues, but 30 percent, or almost $20 million, is derived from fines, fees and other funds. The amount of fees generated is subject to fluctuation influenced by the economy.
Developing more stability in funding continues to be a challenge for state courts all over the country. Our technology initiatives continue to help the courts of SC wring the maximum value out of the funds we are appropriated. The General Assembly has recently granted us capital funding to build a statewide electronic filing system. The design of this project is underway. It will make our courts far more efficient and make court records more accessible to judges, litigants and the general public. Additionally, since the Judicial Branch will own the system, we will be able to use the fees generated to support the information technology system we have built without relying so heavily on additional state appropriations for this division. Stable financial support will continue to be a challenge for the state's judicial branch. Building confidence in the Legislative and Executive branches by continuing to emphasize effective management of the court's business process is the strongest way to assure continued support for Judicial Branch funding. Additionally, the state's economic progress is very much impacted by the sound management of its court system. Many major American corporations outsourced abroad in the last 20 years to avoid overregulation and high labor costs. These corporations have now found that in many overseas jurisdictions, their copyrights and patents are not protected, their contracts are not enforced and corruption, not the rule of law, prevails. Many are now insourcing, coming back home. When these corporations look at a proposed location, they examine the efficiency and stability of the prospective state court system.
Under my watch, SC's courts have been a bright beacon for our state. I would continue to emphasize the management style which has engendered the confidence of the business community. National studies reveal that the general public is woefully unfamiliar with how courts operate and what significance the court system really has in their daily life. Basic societal stability and safety is in the most fundamental way dependent on the existence of a vibrant system for resolving civil disputes and enforcing fairly enacted criminal laws. Many nations around the globe have systems which, on paper, mirror ours. They have constitutional guarantees of individual and property rights, fairly elected legislative and executive branches and a legal system which enforces the law and checks the unconstitutional misuse of power by the executive and legislative. But many of these nations exist in societal chaos, corruption, and lack of basic protection of human rights because their court systems are not independent. In this country, and in our state, court leaders have the duty to actively participate in civic education for adults and children. We also have a duty to operate our courts fairly, respectfully and impartially.
I have instituted many programs of civic education across our state. Additionally, my creation of The Chief Justice's Commission on the Profession, at the encouragement of then SC Bar President Dewey Oxner, has very effectively advanced the cause of professionalism for lawyers and judges. Programs such as year-long mentoring of each new lawyer, revamping of the disciplinary system for lawyers and judges, and development of civility programs for all lawyers are examples of successful efforts by the Commission to enhance the public's confidence in the courts of SC and its legal profession. SC has made strides in reducing non-violent crime, but violent crime continues to be a threat to societal peace and good order. One of the most effective methods of reducing violent crime is to swiftly, effectively and fairly process outstanding violent crime cases. I would continue to emphasize establishment of good management practices for our criminal dockets.
Backlogs cost the local government dearly in housing costs for those who are not out on bond. Delay in trial encourages many out on bond to re-offend. I intend to retire on December 31, 2015, the end of the year following my 72nd birthday which will occur August 11, 2015.
In these additional two years, the following are among the priority projects I hope to accomplish: Other structural issues affecting the windows, exterior wall and roof of the Calhoun Building are being studied and engineered under my supervision. Staged in projects will be presented to the appropriate committees as funds permit. The Supreme Court Building also has structural and water penetration issues. Engineering studies are underway, and the Judicial Department is contributing its funds to this effort.
I try to reserve every year, a portion of my state budget in unspent funds for capital improvements. I inform all budgeting authorities of the amounts carried forward and present the projects for approval. I do this because General Services is chronically underfunded. I believe I can effectively manage these construction project to conclusion. I believe collegiality among the members of the SC judiciary has been the hallmark of my administration as Chief. This atmosphere of affection and respect begins for a trial judge with an initial mentorship. Each family or circuit court judge is paired with an experienced judge for several terms of court. They co-preside and then preside under the supervision of the experienced judge. What they learn about the practical aspects of conducting court is invaluable. They also form career-long bonds with more experienced colleagues and learn firsthand how committed SC judges are to helping each other succeed. The Judicial Branch also conducts a new judges school. This intense, all day, three-day-long seminar covers courtroom and docket management, technology, bench book resources, ethical rules, and practical tips about the conduct of many types of trials. These seminars and the detailed bench books and manuals are developed by our judges. The faculty is comprised of our own judges and administrative staff, law professors and attorneys. SC has the smallest number of judges per capita of any state in the country. The per-judge caseloads are the heaviest of any state. The key to our ability to provide effective justice for SC is our judges' heartfelt commitment to the integrity of the rule of law and to our courts as an institution. Our collegiality is at the center of our success. I have a deeply personal relationship with each statewide judge. I also have a close, personal relationship with many of our Summary Court judges. I celebrate their success with emails, telephone conversations and in-person meetings. I also have close, personal relationships with the Clerks of Courts, Solicitors and Public Defenders. I attend every statewide meeting these members of the broader court family conduct. With my statewide judges, I mentor their performance and contact judges frequently to praise their successes. If I receive inquiries of concern regarding a judge's performance that do not require immediate submission to Disciplinary Counsel, I have staff look into the concern. I then meet privately with the judge always accompanied by a member of Court Administration or the Clerk of the Supreme Court. These counseling sessions are conducted with dignity and respect but with candor. In the vast majority of cases, I am able to successfully resolve these performance issues. I believe the judges feel they can trust my honest and compassion. This approach has fostered a strong atmosphere of collegiality, and has given the judges the confidence to confide in me. It is well known that I will handle concerns with discretion. It is also well know that I will not hesitate to send a matter to Disciplinary Counsel where lawyer and judicial conduct rules require investigation. Fostering collegiality on the Supreme Court requires attention to how we treat each other but also how we work together as a court. Unlike the work of an individual trial court, the decision of an appellate court is a collective and collaborative one. The nation's first Chief Justice, John Marshall, considered speaking with one voice an essential element of engendering public trust and confidence in America's newly created Judicial Branch. For most of his service, no dissents were filed by members of the US Supreme Court. As the American appellate courts, both state and federal, have matured, concurring and dissenting opinions have become an important part of developing this country's jurisprudence.
Collegiality in disagreement and respect for the views of others has been a hallmark of the SC Supreme Court in my years as its Chief. I will continue to encourage us to "speak with one voice" whenever circumstance and good conscience permit. I believe, as did John Marshall, that public confidence in our opinions is maximized when our rulings are clear and unified.
The Commission commented that Chief Justice Toal is imminently qualified for continued service as Chief Justice of the SC Supreme Court based on her twenty-five years as a Justice, first as an Associate Justice and then for the past thirteen years as Chief Justice on the SC Supreme Court. They noted her many accomplishments as Chief Justice, including but not limited to, the completion of an internet-based case management system for magistrates, circuit court, and appellate courts, traveling the state to speak to many different audiences about the judicial system, and her sound fiscal management of the courts especially in lean economic times. The Commission found Chief Justice Toal qualified and nominated her for re-election as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
The Honorable Alison Renee Lee (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lee meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court Judge.
Judge Lee was born in 1958. She is 55 years old and a resident of Columbia, SC. Judge Lee provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1984. She has been licensed in Texas since 1982 and in Louisiana since 1983. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Lee. Judge Lee 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 Lee reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Lee testified that she has not:
Judge Lee 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 Lee to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Lee described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
Judge Lee reported that she has taught the following law related courses or lectured at the following conferences, institutions or judicial education programs: Judge Lee reported that she has not published any books or articles. (4) Character: The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Lee has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Lee 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 Lee reported that, to her knowledge, she is not rated by any legal rating organization.
Judge Lee appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Judge Lee appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Judge Lee was admitted to the SC Bar in 1984.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
Judge Lee reported that she has held the following judicial offices:
The following is Judge Lee's account of her five most significant orders or opinions:
The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice claim against the charitable hospital and its nurses. The plaintiff had to establish that the nurses were grossly negligent to obtain a verdict against them individually. After hearing the testimony during the course of the week, the jury returned a verdict against the hospital only. The jury specifically found that the nurses were not grossly negligent. The hospital was a charitable organization which, under the statutes, would only be liable up to $300,000 per occurrence. Based upon post trial arguments, I reduced the $1.54 million verdict to $300,000. The plaintiff appealed claiming that there was more than one occurrence and therefore her damages should not have been limited. On appeal, the decision was affirmed;
This was a non-jury trial in partners in a failed restaurant venture sought dissolution of the partnership, an accounting of the assets and claims for damages from the operation of the business. The trial lasted one week and involved voluminous documents, checks, records and photographs;
The plaintiffs were homeowners whose property was flooded during a severe rain event. They sued the Town of Latta claiming it failed to properly maintain the sewage and rainwater drainage system. Additionally the plaintiffs alleged that problems with the pipes led to the overflow in their yard which caused the repeated flooding of the property. They sued claiming negligence, trespass and inverse condemnation. The town raised issues of immunity under the state's Tort Claims Act, which limits liability for a governmental agency. There were numerous motions relating to the immunity and the claims. I granted many of the motions, reserving the claim of negligence for the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs;
Watson was charged with murder and filed a motion to determine his immunity from prosecution under the Protection of Persons and Property Act based upon the Castle Doctrine. After an evidentiary hearing, I ruled that he was entitled to immunity. The State has appealed; Mr. Curtis sought to enjoin the state from enforcing a statute prohibiting the sale of urine in interstate commerce and to declare the statute unconstitutional.
Judge Lee further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
The Commission believes that Judge Lee's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Midlands Citizens Committee found Judge Lee to be "Qualified" as to constitutional qualifications. They found her "Well Qualified" as to ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated, "Judge Lee enjoys an excellent reputation for her legal knowledge and excellent demeanor. She has a wealth of experience. As several attorneys have noted, Judge Lee 'tries to get it right' regardless of the parties or the lawyers. She works hard and obviously cares deeply about being a judge." The Committee stated in its summary, "She is extremely well qualified." Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children.
Judge Lee reported that she was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations:
Judge Lee provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
The Commission members commented that Judge Lee has had a good career on the bench. They agreed with the sentiment of the SC Bar and the Midlands Citizens Committee for Judicial Qualifications that Judge Lee has served with distinction. Specifically, the Commission members commented that it is unfortunate that she has been subject to criticism for her handling of bond issues. They expressed that she has not violated any constitutional or statutory bond provisions. The Commission found Judge Lee qualified and nominated her for re-election to the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 12 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the chairman of the Commission determined the public hearing for Judge Russo was unnecessary as there was no request for a hearing by at least six members of the Commission, his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, and there was no substantial reason for having a public hearing regarding his candidacy. (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Russo meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge. Judge Russo was born in 1955. He is 58 years old and a resident of Florence, SC. Judge Russo provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1987.
Judge Russo previously held membership in the Georgia Bar from 1988-2012. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Russo. Judge Russo 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 Russo reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Russo testified that he has not:
Judge Russo 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 Russo to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Russo described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date SCCJC - Annual Judge's Conference 05/06/2009;
SCAJ - Annual Conference 08/06/2009;
SC Bar - Civil Law Update 01/22/2010;
03/01/2012;
Judge Russo reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
Judge Russo reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Russo did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Russo did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Russo has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Russo 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 Russo reported that he is not rated by any legal rating organization.
Judge Russo appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Russo appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Russo was admitted to the SC Bar in 1987. Judge Russo was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1988. He further stated, "I am no longer a member of the Georgia Bar. I voluntarily resigned my membership last year because it became apparent to me that I would never return to the State of Georgia to practice law. At the time of my resignation or withdrawal to practice law in Georgia, I was a member in good standing."
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
(c) March 1996 to February 1999 - Tri-County Public Defender - Edgefield, McCormick & Saluda Counties. Served as the contract Public Defender for the referenced counties while maintaining my private practice of law. Represented indigent defendants in General Sessions Court;
General practice of law with an emphasis in plaintiff's personal injury work; also criminal defense, real estate closings, probate, contracts and adoptions;
General civil trial practice in all state and federal courts doing plaintiff's personal injury work, workers compensation, products liability & wrongful death litigation;
Deputy Solicitor focusing on all drug cases. Prosecute those type cases throughout the 2nd Circuit. Aided in establishing a multi-jurisdictional drug task force coordinating law enforcement agencies in the circuit's 3 counties;
Medical malpractice defense of physicians and hospitals. Plaintiff's construction litigation, contracts and auto torts;
Communications law; Public Utilities law; Administrative law; Plaintiff's civil work; Law Clerk to Judge Anderson preparing briefs and memoranda for the Court and assisting Judge Anderson in carrying out the business of the Court. Judge Russo reported that he has held the following judicial office: June 2005-present as a Circuit Court Judge elected by the SC Legislature. My jurisdiction is limited to the trial courts of SC.
Judge Russo provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
In The Supreme Court Opinion No. 27180 - The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of Mr. Daniels but proceeded to instruct the Court to remove from my charges any language suggesting that it is the jury's duty to return a verdict that is "just" or "fair" to all parties, warning that such a charge could effectively alter the jury's perception of the burden of proof, substituting justice and fairness for the presumption of innocence and the States burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;
In The Supreme Court - Opinion No. 26955 - The SC Supreme Court reversed and remanded my decision in this comparative negligence case holding that it was reversible error to not instruct the jury on the definitions of all forms of negligence (i.e.- ordinary negligence, gross negligence and reckless willful or wanton conduct) whenever requested by a party;
In The Supreme Court - Opinion No. 27207 - This case began in the appellate system with the SC Court of Appeals reversing a conviction of PWID Crack Cocaine holding that I was in error in not granting the defense motion to suppress the drug evidence do to an illegal warrantless search. Cert. was granted by The SC Supreme Court and that Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the conviction, finding that my decision to deny the defense motion to suppress was proper under the "Totality of the Circumstances Test";
In The Court of Appeals - Opinion No. 2011-UP-303. The Court of Appeals affirmed my decision to deny the defendant's request for a charge on involuntary manslaughter and upheld the defendant's conviction for murder; In The Court of Appeals - Opinion No. 4684. The Court of Appeals affirmed me in this case where the State Accident Fund (Carrier) sought reimbursement from the SC second Injury Fund (Fund) for monies paid to claimant for a stroke suffered during surgery for a work related back injury. The Court affirmed my decision that the agreement did not cover the Carrier's expenses, also the Court affirmed my determination that the agreement was not void and finally the Court affirmed my refusal to apply equitable estoppel to the case. Judge Russo further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy: In February 2005, I was a candidate for the position of Resident Circuit Court Judge for the 12th Judicial Circuit. Prior to the election, I withdrew from the race because it became evident that I would not have the votes necessary to prevail and saw no need to waste the Legislature's time in going through the voting process. (9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Russo's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Russo to be "Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of constitutional qualifications, physcial health, and mental stability. The Committee found Judge Russo "Well-qualified" in the remaining evaluative criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary, "Judge Russo is a good blend of intelligence and compassion. He enjoys an excellent reputation on and off of the bench." Judge Russo is married to Cheryl Matthews Russo. He has three children.
Judge Russo reported that he was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations:
Judge Russo provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Judge Russo further reported:
I was temporarily suspended from the State of Georgia. When I was first elected to the bench in May of 2005 I received a Georgia Bar Dues Notice that my dues were past due. At that time I decided I would withdraw from the Georgia Bar since I felt I would not be practicing in Georgia again and it would be wasteful to continue to pay those dues. I prepared a letter to that effect but in the process of moving from the practice of law to my position on the bench that letter got lost in the shuffle and was never sent. Subsequently, I received a notice that I was suspended for not paying the dues. I immediately called the Georgia Bar authorities and although I explained my situation and that I wished to withdraw from practicing in Georgia I was informed that I could not withdraw while suspended and that I would have to be reinstated in good standing before I could withdraw. I immediately submitted the necessary paperwork to be readmitted and made the past dues current. It has turned out to be a lengthy process and I was reinstated and was a member in good standing with the Georgia Bar Association until my voluntary resignation last year. That oversight has been corrected, but I did want to discuss that situation."
The Commission found Judge Russo to be well-respected on the Circuit Court bench by the members of the Bar as evidenced by the numerous positive comments from the Ballotboxonline surveys. The Commission found Judge Russo qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 13 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the chairman of the Commission determined the public hearing for Judge Hyman was unnecessary as there was no request for a hearing by at least six members of the Commission, his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, and there was no substantial reason for having a public hearing regarding his candidacy. Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hyman meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Hyman was born in 1949. He is 64 years old and a resident of Conway, SC. Judge Hyman provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1976. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hyman. Judge Hyman 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 Hyman reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Hyman testified that he has not:
Judge Hyman 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 Hyman to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Hyman described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
Judge Hyman reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
Judge Hyman reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hyman did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hyman did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hyman has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Hyman 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 Hyman reported that his last available rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was BV.
Judge Hyman appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Hyman appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Hyman was admitted to the SC Bar in 1976. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: I began my legal career following the bar exam in the fall of 1976. I was associated with Attorney Donald L. Van Riper out of Greenville, SC. I worked as a paralegal for Mr. Van Riper until I passed the bar exam. Thereafter, I became a partner and practiced in the areas of criminal, domestic and real estate law until April of 1977. In 1977, I returned to Horry County. My separation from Mr. Van Riper was on good terms and we remain friends to this day. Upon my return to Horry County, I was given the opportunity to take over the practice of Attorney Sidney T. Floyd who had recently been elected as Resident Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Judge Floyd had been a sole practitioner engaged in the general practice of law for a number of years. This opportunity allowed me to begin practice as a sole practitioner. For approximately one year, Attorney Morgan Martin joined me in my practice. Mr. Martin was with me during 1979/1980 until he took a position as Deputy Solicitor in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. I was a sole practitioner after Mr. Martin's departure. During the first ten years of my practice, I was primarily engaged in domestic law. Family court cases accounted for approximately 70% of my practice. The remainder of my practice included criminal law, real estate, contract litigation, and personal injury. In 1987 I ceased practicing any domestic law. I continued to have an active criminal law practice. However, my civil litigation expanded significantly. In addition to the usual personal injury cases, I successfully handled malpractice, wrongful death, construction, and condemnation cases. I remained active in real estate and general business law. Civil litigation accounted for 70% of my practice. My experience in the criminal courts ranged from handling traffic matters to capital cases. On the civil side of the court, I had experience handling complex plaintiff's cases as well as defending the State Department of Transportation in very complex condemnation cases. From April 1984, through June 1987, I served as Municipal Judge for the City of Conway, SC. My responsibilities included the trial of all cases, compliance with Court Administration Reporting Rules, accounting for fines received, the issuance of all warrants for offenses occurring within the City of Conway, presiding over preliminary hearings and setting bonds in all cases but those involving potential penalties of life imprisonment or capital punishment. I was elected to the Circuit Bench on February 6, 2008, and qualified on May 4, 2008. I have served continually since. Judge Hyman reported that he has held the following judicial offices: On April 2, 1984, I was appointed City Judge for the City of Conway, SC. I served until June 30, 1987. Jurisdiction of this court allowed me to issue all arrest warrants and search warrants for criminal offenses of any nature occurring in the city. I was also charged with the responsibility of setting bonds for all defendants except those charged with crimes involving a potential penalty of life in imprisonment or death. The courts trial jurisdiction involved all offenses having a potential penalty no greater than $200.00 in fines and/or thirty days in jail. I was elected to the Circuit Court Bench in February 2008 and have served continually since May 4, 2008
Judge Hyman provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
In my order granting Defendant Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment I held that (1) the Plaintiffs could not establish vicarious liability on the part of Defendant Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, LLC because the statutes of limitation and repose had expired as to Grand Strand's independent contractors or employees, and they cannot be held directly responsible for medical malpractice; (2) The Plaintiffs did not properly allege and cannot establish negligent hiring, supervision, and training on the part of Defendant Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, LLC; (3) The Relation Back Doctrine is inapplicable to the vicarious liability and negligent hiring, supervision, and training claims because the plaintiff cannot establish a critical element of the causes of action; (4) Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, LLC was never on notice that the Plaintiffs would assert a vicarious liability claim or a negligent hiring, supervision, and training claim against it based on the non-delegable duty doctrine; (5) The relation back doctrine does not apply to statutes of repose.
In my order denying the admission of polygraph evidence, I excluded the polygraph evidence (1) pursuant to Rule 702 and the Jones factors; (2) because of testing irregularities; (3 pursuant to Rule 403; and (4)as a matter of public policy.
My order granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of the owners of over 200 parcels of property that were contaminated by AVX. This is a case that I have complex jurisdiction over and anticipate a multi week trial at some point next year. My Writ of Mandamus ordered the SC Election Commission to count votes cast for a candidate who was removed from the ballot in order to determine if any candidate had in fact reached a majority of votes cast, and if no candidate had reached that majority then a runoff election must be held. The SC Election Commission appealed my initial granting of an Ex Parte TRO in this case to the SC Supreme Court seeking a Writ of Supercedeas. The Supreme Court denied the Petition for a Writ of Supercedeas holding that the Respondents have shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Judge Hyman reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge: While I was part-time municipal judge, I continued to practice law. Since my election to the Circuit Bench, I have had no other employment. Judge Hyman further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
In 1998, I withdrew as a candidate for Resident Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, seat number two. My reason for doing so was that the Honorable Paula Thomas was an At-Large Circuit Judge in Georgetown County. When she decided to run for the vacant resident seat, making her At-Large seat available statewide, I realized any further attempts to secure the resident seat would be futile. Immediately prior to my election, I ran for the Resident Circuit Court Judge for the Fifteenth Circuit, Seat Two. That election was won by the Honorable Benjamin H. Culbertson on May 3, 2007.
The Commission believes that Judge Hyman's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found that Judge Hyman is "Qualified" for constitutional qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee found Judge Hyman to be "Well Qualified" for ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in its summary, "Judge Hyman is well-liked, well-respected, and expects attorneys appearing in his courtroom to be well-prepared." Judge Hyman is married to Meredith Valois Hyman. He has two children.
Judge Hyman reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Judge Hyman provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Judge Hyman further reported:
In 1994 the Fraternal Order of Police presented me with its Life Saving Medal as a result of my coming to the aid of an Horry County Sheriff's Deputy who had been shot by an escaping Defendant at the Horry County Court House. I was also featured in the Sun News newspaper's "People Caring About Others" column.
The Commission commented that Judge Hyman, who has ably served as a Circuit Court judge since 2008, is thought highly of by the litigants who appear before him. The Commission found Judge Hyman qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court.
QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
The Honorable Michael S. Holt
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the chairman of the Commission determined the public hearing for Judge Holt was unnecessary as there was no request for a hearing by at least six members of the Commission, his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, and there was no substantial reason for having a public hearing regarding his candidacy. Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Holt meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Holt was born in 1970. He is 43 years old and a resident of Hartsville, SC. Judge Holt provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1996. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Holt. Judge Holt 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 Holt reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Holt testified that he has not:
Judge Holt 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 Holt to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Holt described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date Judge Holt reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Holt reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Holt did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Holt did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Holt has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Holt 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 Holt reported that he is not rated by any legal rating organization. Judge Holt reported that he has held the following public office:
Elected Mayor of City of Hartsville, SC, 2005-09. I filed all required reports; however, there were late reports which resulted in fines, which were promptly paid.
Judge Holt appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Holt appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Holt was admitted to the SC Bar in 1996.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Judge Holt reported that he has held the following judicial office: SC Family Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, 2009-13.
Judge Holt provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
This case involved a juvenile who was charged with murdering an elderly lady. The matter before the Court was a "waiver" hearing and it was the first one I had handled on the bench. I ultimately determined the juvenile should be waived up to General Sessions after a contested hearing.
This case was a custody battle between maternal grandparents who lived out of state and a relative in SC. The biological mother was deceased and the biological father was in prison. I awarded custody to the relative in SC. This matter was appealed but the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling.
This case involved a family from India and the only issue tried before the Court was custody. The father had come to the United States to practice medicine and left his wife and child in India. The mother came to the United States to visit and the father brought an action for custody. I awarded custody to mother after a lengthy trial.
This case was an equitable division case wherein the wife sought to exclude the husband from significant assets from the marriage. I went through the factors for equitable division and awarded husband half the marital estate.
This was a DSS Abuse and Neglect case wherein the department had asked the Court to remove the children from the parents due to domestic violence among other things. The parents did not work the treatment plan and the Department chose to move before the Court to have the children placed with the paternal grandmother who had not been involved in the children's lives. The Court gave custody to the parties who had the interim custody of the children. This case was significant due to the number of parties involved, it was a lengthy trial and that the children were placed with non-relatives who the Court felt offered the best home to the minor children.
The Commission believes that Judge Holt's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications reported that Judge Holt is "Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of constitutional qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee found Judge Holt "Well Qualified" in the remaining evaluative criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in its summary, "Judge Holt has a strong work ethic and has a reputation in his community of making very informed decisions." Judge Holt is married to Sherry Burton Holt. He has two children.
Judge Holt reported that he was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations:
Judge Holt provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Judge Holt further reported:
I am proud of my service since I was honored by the Legislature in 2009. I have a strong work ethic and believe I am fair and empathetic to those who appear before me.
The Commission noted with approval the comments from the Citizen's Committee concerning Judge Holt's strong work ethic. The Commission found Judge Holt qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3.
6th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Khoury meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court Judge.
Judge Khoury was born in 1959. She is 54 years old and a resident of Lancaster, SC. Judge Khoury provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1985. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Khoury. Judge Khoury 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 Khoury reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Khoury testified that she has not:
Judge Khoury 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 Khoury to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Khoury described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date Judge Khoury reported that she has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Khoury reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Khoury did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Khoury did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Khoury has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Khoury 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 Khoury reported that her last available rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was BV.
Judge Khoury appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Judge Khoury appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Judge Khoury was admitted to the SC Bar in 1985.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: The law firm of Folks, Khoury & DeVenny is a general practice firm where each member of the firm handles specific areas of the law. I have been a member of this firm since graduating from law school and a partner with the firm since January of 2000. Since the beginning of my legal career, I have practiced predominately in the area of family law. Initially I shared the family law responsibilities with various members of the firm. Since January of 1992, I have been the firm's sole Family Court practitioner. Judge Khoury further reported regarding her experience with the Family Court practice area: I have extensive experience in the practice areas of divorce, equitable division of property, child custody and abuse and neglect matters. I have also handled a significant amount of adoption cases throughout my career. I have handled very few matters in the area of juvenile justice. In 2012, I had about 200 appearances in Family Court. I have averaged close to this number of appearances before Family Court judges in the past five years. In these cases, I have served as the attorney for one of the litigants, guardian ad litem for a minor child/children or attorney for the guardian ad litem in DSS cases. Many of these cases were uncontested but others involved lengthy hearings. I have handled both fault and no fault divorces. Most of these divorce cases have involved the division of marital assets and debts in some degree. These assets include real estate, retirement accounts, businesses, stocks, motor vehicles and household belongings. A number of these cases have involved the issue of alimony. I have represented mothers, fathers and grandparents in custody cases over the last twenty six (26) years. I have been successful with the help of guardians, experts, mediators and opposing counsel to resolve many of these custody cases without expensive and protracted litigation. I usually handle about five (5) contested custody cases per year. I have handled both private and DSS adoptions in my practice. Most of the private adoptions involved a relative or step parent adopting a child related by blood or marriage. Almost all of my adoption cases have been uncontested cases. I handled all my firm's court appointments in abuse and neglect cases until I began representing the guardian ad litem program in Lancaster around 2003. I have very little experience handling clients involved with the Department of Juvenile Justice. However, since April of 2006, I have been serving as the Judge for the Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court. I have become more familiar with the substantial and procedural aspects of the juvenile process through my association with the Drug Court team. I believe my experience in the Family Court and my familiarity with the law of domestic relations and the Family Court system will assist me in handling all matters that would come before me as a Family Court judge.
Judge Khoury reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years:
Judge Khoury reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Judge Khoury reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Judge Khoury provided that she most often serves as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Khoury's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
This matter began with an expedited temporary hearing and is currently pending before the SC Supreme Court on a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. This case is significant because it involved various types of hearings: temporary hearings, motion hearings, contempt hearings, a merits hearing and oral arguments before the Court of Appeals. This case required the preparation of trial documents, an appellate brief, a Return to Petition for Rehearing and a Return to a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. This case was tried for over four days. The main issues in this case were the characterization of assets, the transmutation of assets and the distribution of marital assets. To date, my client has been successful at each level of this litigation and I have obtained trial experience and sharpen my trial skills at each stage of the litigation.
This is a matter in which I represented a father who had been trying to have a relationship with his daughter since he and the child's mother ended their relationship. The mother filed an answer and counterclaim requesting the termination of the father's parental rights and the trial judge at the temporary hearing denied the father request for visitation with his daughter. The judge at the merits hearing, despite the guardian ad litem's recommendations to the contrary, ordered reunification of the father and his daughter with a phase in schedule of visitation. Mother filed a notice of appeal and Petition for Writ of Supersedeas. Mother's Petition for Writ of Supersedeas was denied. Initial appellate briefs have not been filed. Father has begun visiting with his daughter after a three year battle. This case is significant in that father was given the opportunity to renew his relationship with his daughter. The main focus of this case as in all cases involving custody, termination of parental rights or adoption is the best interest of the child and not the desires of the parents. Contested custody and termination of rights cases are difficult to prepare for lawyers and heart wrenching for litigants but rewarding for children if their best interests are considered and healthy family relationships can be preserved.
This case was a seven day contested custody case. I represented the father of four children ages 13, 8, 6 and 4. The 4 year old child was a special needs child. The mother was a stay at home mom and was awarded custody at the Temporary hearing. At the final hearing, the father was awarded custody. This case involved a counselor, therapist, guardian ad litem and the thorough investigation into all aspects of what was in the best interest of the children. The Court considered all the statutory and common law factors. This case is significant because it resulted in the award of custody to the father who at the beginning of the case was not considered the primary custodian parent. The Court in reaching its decision to award the father custody of the young children considered the impact of the custody decision on all areas of the children's lives--psychological, physical, environmental, spiritual, educational, medical, familial, emotional and recreational and not just the traditional roles of the parents.
In this case, I represented a mother who was opposed to changing her child's surname to that of the surname of the father. The mother and father were never married. The guardian ad litem assigned to the case recommended changing the child's surname to that of the father or including the father's name in a hyphenated surname for the child. The trial judge ordered that the child's surname be changed to that of the father. The mother appealed the judge's ruling and the decision was reversed. This case was significant in that it recognized that both parents have an equal interest in a child bearing their respective surname. In addition, the court held that the party attempting to change the child's name must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the name change is in the child's best interests. The Court further enumerated the factors to consider when making a determination as to whether changing a child's surname is in the best interest of the child. After a favorable ruling to my client and the issuance of the final decree of divorce, the opposing party moved to vacate the Order and reopen the case alleging he did not receive proper notice of the hearing. Husband alleged that service of the final hearing notice was defective. The motion was dismissed by the trial judge. Husband filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal. Both parties filed initial briefs with the Court of Appeals. This case was significant because it involved the application and understanding of both the substantive laws of equitable distribution and the procedural laws of domestic litigation.
The following is Judge Khoury's account of five civil appeals she has personally handled: Judge Khoury reported that she has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Judge Khoury reported that she has held the following judicial office: I was appointed to preside over the Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court Program on April 20, 2005. This assignment allows me to preside over hearings and impose sanctions for violations of the conditions of the Drug Court Program. Judge Khoury reported the following regarding her most significant orders or opinions: The Juvenile Drug Court appointment does not require the issuance of orders or opinions. Judge Khoury reported the following regarding her employment while serving as a judge: I have been employed as a lawyer with Folks, Khoury & DeVenny while serving as a Juvenile Drug Court Judge in the Sixth Judicial Circuit. Judge Khoury further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
In 2008, I was unsuccessful in my run for Family Court Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2. This election was won by W. Thomas Sprott Jr.
The Commission believes that Judge Khoury's temperament would be excellent. The Piedmont Citizens Committee found Judge Khoury to be "Qualified" in evaluative criteria of constitutional qualifications and "Well Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in its summary, "The interviews conducted by the Committee indicated that Ms. Khoury is universally regarded as a person of high integrity, ethics and character. Likewise, the Committee considered her to be 'Well Qualified' in the areas of professional ability, reputation and experience due to her 28 years of extensive practice in handling virtually every type of Family Court matter." Judge Khoury is married to Jeffery Lynn Hammond. She has two children.
Judge Khoury reported that she was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations: Judge Khoury provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization: Past member of the Lancaster County Drug and Alcohol Commission. Judge Khoury further reported:
As a parent, community participant, teacher and lawyer, I have seen how decisions made in Family Court affect the lives of litigants, their families and friends. I have dealt with clients in distress and turmoil. I have experienced the stress and pressures of a Family Court lawyer. As a judge, I would hope to never lose sight of the emotions of litigants, the pressures of Family Court practitioners and the importance of each and every decision made in Family Court. I would behave in a way that facilitates conflict resolutions and not in a fashion that spurs emotional strife. I would be courteous to litigants, lawyers and court personnel. I would be attentive during the hearing, well versed in the law and render decisions in a timely fashion. I would try to remember that what is routine and common to me as a regular participant in Family Court hearings is new and terrifying to most litigants and witnesses. I would hope to be viewed as a judge who uses her gut, heart and head to render good decisions. I would hope to have litigants and lawyers leave the courtroom, whether successful or not, feeling their stories were heard, their positions considered and they were treated with respect in the resolution of their disputes.
The Commission commented that Judge Khoury is known as a sharp Family Court practitioner, which will assist her on the bench. The Commission noted that they were also impressed with her numerous court appearances. The Commission found Judge Khoury qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court.
6th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the chairman of the Commission determined the public hearing for Judge Sprott was unnecessary as there was no request made for a hearing by at least six members of the Commission, his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, and there was no substantial reason for having a public hearing regarding his candidacy. Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Sprott meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge. Judge Sprott was born in 1945. He is 68 years old and a resident of Winnsboro, SC. Judge Sprott provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1973. (2) Ethical Fitness: The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Sprott. Judge Sprott 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 Sprott reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Sprott testified that he has not:
Judge Sprott 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 Sprott to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Sprott described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Date Judge Sprott reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Sprott reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Sprott did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Sprott did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Sprott has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Sprott 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 Sprott reported that his last available rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was AV. Judge Sprott reported the following military service:
US Army from September 1968 to August 1970. Medical Service Corp, 1st Lt., honorable discharge.
Judge Sprott appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Sprott appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Sprott was admitted to the SC Bar in 1973.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Judge Sprott reported that he has held the following judicial offices: I was a Municipal Judge for the Town of Winnsboro from 1981-97 and was appointed by Town Council. This court has jurisdiction to try cases arising under municipal ordinances and criminal cases made under State law where the penalty did not exceed $500.00 or 30 days. The court has the authority to issue arrest and search warrants, conduct preliminary hearings and set bail. I was a temporary Administrative Law Judge during the interim just prior to the creation of the Administrative Law Court in 1992. My hearings were limited to those contesting the issuance of beer and wine licenses, and permits to sell liquor. I was appointed. I was a Special Referee in many matters until 2008, being appointed by the Clerk of Court in default matters, and by the Circuit Judge in contested matters. Most of the cases were for the partition of realty, foreclosure of mortgages, and suits to quiet title. In these matters I was given the same powers and authority of a Circuit Judge with appeal directly to the Appellate or Supreme Court. I have been a Family Court Judge since February 25, 2008 to the present. I was elected by the legislature. The Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving family relationships including marriage, divorce, legal separation, custody, visitation rights, termination of parental rights, adoption, support, alimony, division of marital property and change of name. It has jurisdiction over minors under seventeen alleged to have violated local or state laws, and in some instances it has concurrent jurisdiction with magistrate or municipal courts. It further has jurisdiction over matters relating to abuse and neglect of children and vulnerable adults which involves the Department of Social Services.
Judge Sprott provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions: Judge Sprott further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
In 1980, I announced as a candidate for the Family Court judgeship in the 6th Circuit created upon the death of William Hare, and cleared the judicial screening committee. Prior to the election, I withdrew my candidacy. Thomas B. Barrineau of Winnsboro was elected the Family Court Judge.
The Commission believes that Judge Sprott's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Piedmont Citizens Committee found Judge Sprott "Well Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee found Judge Sprott "Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of constitutional qualifications. The Committee stated in its summary, "The interviews conducted by the Committee indicated that Judge Sprott has been a fine Family Court judge and remains Well Qualified to serve in that position." Judge Sprott is married to Jeanne Frost Wardlaw. He has one child.
Judge Sprott reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Judge Sprott provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization: Winnsboro Cotillion Judge Sprott further reported:
I began practicing law in 1973, and since then I have served in several judicial capacities and have been exposed to many areas of law. I served as a municipal judge, a temporary Administrative Law Judge, a Special Referee, and a Family Court Judge. I am still learning. I think my reputation is good, I enjoy my work, and I am honored to serve and humbled by the confidence others have placed in me. I wish to continue to serve my State in this fashion.
The Commission noted that Judge Sprott has an excellent reputation in his community and he has ably served on the Family Court bench since 2008. The Commission found Judge Sprott qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.
9th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the chairman of the Commission determined the public hearing for Judge Cate was unnecessary as there was no request made for a hearing by at least six members of the Commission, her candidacy for re-election was uncontested, and there was no substantial reason for having a public hearing regarding her candidacy. Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cate meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Cate was born in 1960. She is 53 years old and a resident of Hollywood, SC. Judge Cate provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1986. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cate. Judge Cate 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 Cate reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Cate testified that she has not:
Judge Cate 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 Cate to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Cate described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
Judge Cate reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
Judge Cate reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cate did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cate did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cate has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Cate 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 Cate reported that her rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, is BV.
Judge Cate appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Judge Cate appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Judge Cate was admitted to the SC Bar in 1986.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: Law clerk, Fifth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office, Richland County.
Primary responsibilities included legal research, coordinating witnesses/victims for trial, prepared indictments for presentment to Grand Jury; Assistant Solicitor, Ninth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office, Berkeley County. Primary responsibilities included handling Department of Social Services
Abuse/neglect cases, URESA child support enforcement, prosecution of juvenile offenders and General Sessions criminal sexual conduct prosecution; Judicial Law Clerk, Judge Lawrence E. Richter, Jr. (retired), Ninth Judicial Circuit, Charleston/Berkeley Counties
Primary responsibilities included legal research, drafting orders, reviewing proposed orders, frequent consultations with judge, scheduling pre-trial, discovery and motion hearings with attorneys;
Associate -- Domestic relations, general civil and criminal litigation, county administrative law;
Private general practice with primary emphasis in Family Court litigation; Judge Cate further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy: Master-in-Equity (Dorchester County) - 1992.
Judge Cate reported she has held the following judicial office:
Judge Cate provided the following list of her most significant orders: The Commission believes that Judge Cate's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. (10) Miscellaneous: The Lowcountry Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Cate to be "Well Qualified" as to ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, experience, and judicial temperament, and "Qualified" as to constitutional qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. Judge Cate is married to Ned C. Ginsburg. She has one child.
Judge Cate reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Judge Cate provided that she was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations. Judge Cate further reported:
Past commission member of the SC Supreme Court Commission on CLE and Specialization. Currently serving on the Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct.
The Commission commented that Judge Cate is known as an excellent Family Court judge who has diligently performed her duties since 2002. The Commission found Judge Cate qualified and nominated her for re-election to the Family Court.
13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Alexander meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge. Mr. Alexander was born in 1949. He is 64 years old and a resident of Marietta, SC. Mr. Alexander provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1974. (2) Ethical Fitness: The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Alexander. Mr. Alexander 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. Alexander reported that he has made campaign expenditures of approximately $90 for: envelopes ($60); and stationery ($30).
Mr. Alexander testified that he has not:
Mr. Alexander 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. Alexander to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Mr. Alexander described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date Exempt beginning in 2012.
Mr. Alexander reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
Mr. Alexander reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Alexander did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Alexander did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Alexander has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Alexander 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. Alexander reported that he is not rated by any legal rating organization. He further reported, "I have been rated by five clients in Martindale-Hubbell and received a favorable rating from all five clients." Mr. Alexander reported the following military service:
I served in the United States Air Force on active duty from 1974-78. I attained the rank of Captain and received an honorable discharge. I was in the Air Force Reserve for a short period of time after discharge.
Mr. Alexander appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Alexander appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Alexander was admitted to the SC Bar in 1974.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Mr. Alexander further reported regarding his experience with the Family Court practice area: I have had extensive experience in handling cases involving divorce and equitable division of property and child custody cases. These areas of Family Court litigation have always been a constant and fairly significant part of my practice. I have also handled a substantial number of Family Court cases involving juveniles when I practiced with Mr. Coyle. I regularly handled abuse and neglect cases either by appointment or being privately retained until my son received a contract to represent the GAL program in Pickens County. Adoptions were a very minor part of my Family Court practice. Steven Alexander now handles adoptions and any juvenile proceedings since he joined the firm as those are areas in which he is interested. As to abuse and neglect cases, my son has a contract with and serves as the attorney for the GAL program in Pickens County and I cannot handle any DSS case in which he is involved. I am also exempt from appointment. However, I still occasionally get involved in abuse and neglect cases if I am already representing clients on unrelated matters who are charged with those allegations. Since I am already involved with the accused parents, my son disqualifies and recuses himself and another lawyer handles that case from start to finish for the Guardian program. However, I do not seek any abuse and neglect cases because of his involvement. I do sometimes substitute for him as the attorney for the GAL and get involved in abuse and neglect cases. I have an extensive background in the Family Court in all types of litigation and believe that this experience has prepared me to deal with these issues as a judge.
Mr. Alexander reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Alexander reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Alexander reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Mr. Alexander provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Alexander's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
This Family Court matter involved custody and visitation. Litigation consisting of a divorce action and a substantial change of circumstances action was pursued over a period of several years. I represented the wife and multiple hearings were held. The case was significant because it involved most aspects of child custody and visitation issues.
The parties were divorced and the mother received custody of two children. Subsequent to divorce, a substantial change of circumstances action was brought as to custody of the youngest child and I represented the father. Contested hearings were held. Settlement negotiations were very difficult but the case was eventually settled by an agreement. The lawyers had developed an amicable relationship during the case and this helped with reaching a settlement. The significance is that a case has a much better chance of being settled by agreement if the lawyers involved have a good working relationship with each other.
A bank sued my client for a deficiency balance due on a loan in his name for a car that had been purchased for his ex-wife while they were married. The issue was the interpretation of sections of the Uniform Commercial Code as to whether the contract was only a financing agreement (client's position) or whether it was a hybrid document that also included a sales agreement (bank's position). The statute of limitations was either 6 years (bank wins) or 3 years (client wins because the bank waited 5 years to file). This was a case of first impression in SC on the issue presented. The case was tried non-jury in Common Pleas Court and resulted in judgment in favor of my client. The bank chose not to file an appeal.
The Court had issued a final divorce order that divided marital property. A contempt action was filed against my client in 2009 which involved his actions as to the marital property distribution. My client's defense and substantial monetary claims raised a jurisdictional issue because a division of marital property in a prior final order was involved. The Court found that it was without jurisdiction and could not consider or determine his claims, found him in willful violation of the prior order, and imposed sanctions. A notice of intent to appeal was filed. Subsequently, an agreement was reached at a settlement conference and the appeal was dismissed. The significance is that he obtained a satisfactory portion of the monetary claims he made and the settlement saved him attorney's fees by avoiding the appeal. My client slipped and fell in a grocery store and suffered a very severe injury in a county in the lower part of the State and I filed a lawsuit in that county. The case involved trial preparation in two different parts of the State. The parties agreed to mediation even though it was not mandatory at that time. This mediation resulted in a satisfactory settlement to my client.
The following is Mr. Alexander's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled:
I represented the Pajelas in this case in the Pickens County Court of Common Pleas and filed an appeal on their behalf when the Trial Court granted summary judgment to the respondent. After I filed appellant's Initial Brief and Designation of Matter to be included in the record on appeal, the parties agreed for the Trial Court's Order to be vacated and the case remanded back to the Trial Court for trial. The Court of Appeals by order dated December 23, 2009 remanded the case to the Trial Judge for approval of the agreement. The Trial Judge approved the agreement and the appeal was eventually dismissed.
Judgment was granted at the trial stage to the plaintiffs and defendants O'Donald whom I represented appealed. The Court Of Appeals upheld the verdict of the trial court in an unpublished opinion. A motion for Summary Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs whom I represented and defendant David Watson appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict of the trial court in an opinion published as 271 S.C. 60 (S.C. App. 2006).
Mr. Alexander reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
The Commission believes that Mr. Alexander's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Mr. Alexander to be "Well Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, and experience and "Qualified" as to judicial temperament. Mr. Alexander is married to Linda Sue Whitlock Alexander. He has three children.
Mr. Alexander reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Mr. Alexander provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization: Pickens County Sertoma Club. Mr. Alexander further reported:
I have been involved with people in many ways. During my legal practice, I have seen a lot of family problems and handled them on a professional level. I am also a member of Pickens First Baptist Church and have served in many capacities there, including being a Sunday School Teacher. However, my most satisfying and eye opening experience has been on the Church Benevolence Committee. On this Committee, I have dealt directly with a part of society in a personal way that a lot of citizens do not see and I have been involved with solving a variety of family issues. This experience has given me a lot of insight into the dynamics of family relationships. I also served on the City of Pickens Recreation Commission while my children were growing up and even after they were out of the program. This Commission provides recreational opportunities to all children in the Pickens area. I served as chairman for several years. Seeing and dealing with the many problems that arose with parents, children, coaches, fund raising, and City officials, was challenging. But this experience was invaluable to me as I learned to deal with people on a personal level and it helped me assist people in their legal problems on a professional level.
The Commission commented that Mr. Alexander has an excellent demeanor. They noted his outstanding legal experience which would be an asset on the Family Court bench. The Commission found Mr. Alexander qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court.
13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Dunbar meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Dunbar was born in 1961. She is 52 years old and a resident of Greenville, SC. Ms. Dunbar provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1990. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Dunbar. Ms. Dunbar 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. Dunbar reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Dunbar testified she has not: Ms. Dunbar testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. (3) Professional and Academic Ability: The Commission found Ms. Dunbar to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Ms. Dunbar described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date Ms. Dunbar reported that she has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Ms. Dunbar reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Dunbar did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Dunbar did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Dunbar has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Dunbar 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. Dunbar reported that she is not rated by any legal rating organization.
Ms. Dunbar appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Dunbar appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Dunbar was admitted to the SC Bar in 1990.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: Ms. Dunbar further reported regarding her experience with the Family Court practice area: I have handled a simple divorce, tried a child custody case, attorney for Department of Social Services handling abuse and neglect cases, terminating parental rights. Presently, I am an attorney with the Department of Social Services Child Support Division, handling cases establishing paternity and child support.
Ms. Dunbar reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Dunbar reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Dunbar reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. Dunbar provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Dunbar's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
Ms. Dunbar reported she has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.
The Commission believes that Ms. Dunbar's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Ms. Dunbar to be "Well Qualified" for each of the evaluative criteria: ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Ms. Dunbar is married to Vernon F. Dunbar. She has three children.
Ms. Dunbar reported that she was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations: Ms. Dunbar provided that she was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations. Ms. Dunbar further reported: My work experience as an attorney for the SC Labor, Licensing and Regulations involved providing legal advice to the numerous professional licensing boards during hearings regarding the suspension and revocation of licenses and issuance of fines. My position with SC Labor Licensing and Regulation allowed me to take part in deliberations concerning the decision regarding someone's professional license. I drafted orders on behalf of the Board reflecting the findings of facts and conclusions of law. Next, I began work as an attorney representing the state of SC in abuse and neglect and adult protective services. Presently, I work in the Department of Social Services Child Support Division. My current position commonly places me in the unique position of being objective and unbiased because I am not an advocate for the custodial or noncustodial parent. My job is to protect the state's interest while being fair and objective to the parties with regard to the child support needs of the custodial parent and the ability to pay from the perspective of the noncustodial parent. My primary job duties require me to be fair and objective with both the noncustodial parent and the custodial parent. I serve people from all financial, social and cultural backgrounds. I am in court on average three days per week negotiating and litigating cases involving contempt and paternity, and establishing and modifying child support orders. This experience has sharpened my legal and analytical skills, and has equipped me to listen intently and not prejudice. I always make certain that I am fair to both sides after listening to the account of each party.
In 2005, former Governor Mark Sanford appointed me to serve as a Human Affairs Coordinator to the SC Human Affairs Commission. My quasi-judicial duties included reviewing findings and approving decisions regarding complaints of employment discrimination filed against state agencies of state government.
The Commission commented that Ms. Dunbar has great enthusiasm, which would serve her well as a Family Court judge. They noted her dedicated public service as an attorney for the Department of Social Services Child Support Division since 2006. The Commission found Ms. Dunbar qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court.
13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Tiffany meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Tiffany was born in 1970. She is 43 years old and a resident of Greenville, SC. She provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1995. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Tiffany. Ms. Tiffany 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. Tiffany reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Tiffany testified she has not:
Ms. Tiffany 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. Tiffany to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Ms. Tiffany described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
Moderator and Author of Handbook
Ms. Tiffany reported that she has taught the following law-related courses: Ms. Tiffany reported that she has published the following:
Co-Author, "Business Good Will in SC", SC Lawyer Magazine, May 2011. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Tiffany did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Tiffany did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Tiffany has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Tiffany 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. Tiffany reported that her rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, is Peer Review Rating of AV PREEMINENT.
Ms. Tiffany appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Tiffany appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Tiffany was admitted to the SC Bar in 1995.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: Ms. Tiffany further reported: From 1996 to approximately 2002, my practice primarily focused on Family Court cases. I was also involved in some Common Pleas, Magistrate Court and Probate Court cases. Since 2002, my practice has almost exclusively focused on Family Court cases, with only occasional involvement in other areas of practice. Ms. Tiffany further reported regarding her experience with the Family Court practice area: DIVORCE I have handled the issue of divorce, both in conjunction with the other issues listed below, and as the sole issue in cases. I have been involved in cases involving divorces on all statutory grounds (one year separation; adultery; habitual drunkenness and physical cruelty), with the exception of desertion, which I have not seen raised in my 16 years in private practice. I have also handled at least one annulment action and one action involving common law marriage. In April of this year, I prepared written materials and spoke at the SC Bar Seminar "Presenting the Family Court Case" on the topic of preparing final orders. In my materials I provided an outline of each statutory grounds for divorce, including the code section, burden of proof and findings required for such grounds. EQUITABLE DIVISION/PROPERTY While in private practice, I have dealt with the identification, valuation and division of many different types of marital property, including real estate, livestock, automobiles, retirement accounts (401ks, IRAs, annuities, pension plans and defined benefit plans); investment accounts; stocks; stock options; restricted stock; insurance policies; capital loss carryovers; closely held businesses; professional practices; and personal property to give examples. In conjunction with property issues, I have also dealt with the identification and allocation of debts, including secured debts and unsecured debts; tax debts; and credit cards. In all of my cases, I have tried to be diligent and thorough in preparing detailed assets and debts lists supported with documentation or objective evidence. In several cases I have worked with expert witnesses who have valued assets such as real estate, personal property, businesses and defined benefit plans, preparing direct and cross examination and educating myself on their methods. I have dealt not only with issues involving marital property, but also those involving non marital property, such as defending against and pursuing claims of interest in non marital property sought on the basis of transmutation and special equity. I have drafted Qualified Domestic Relations Orders for the division of different types of retirement plans -- including the division of 401k plans; IRAs; pension plans/benefits for corporations; and defined benefit plans such as the SC Retirement System and airline pilot benefit plans. CHILD CUSTODY I have represented parents (married, unmarried, male and female) in custody and visitation actions. I have also represented third parties (grandparents, step-grandparents, and non blood relatives) seeking custody of children. I have served as a guardian ad litem for children in many custody and/or visitation actions. My experience includes actions for custody and visitation (in both "initial" actions raising these issues, and in actions seeking to modify custody and/or visitation). I have dealt with custody/visitation issues involving healthy children, children with special needs, children who are infants and children who are teenagers close to emancipation. I have had to confront and address claims of physical abuse, neglect and parental alienation. I have worked with professionals (such as physicians, therapists and teachers) and expert witnesses (such as psychological and forensic custody evaluators) in connection with custody and visitation issues. I have also had to navigate complicated issues of biological and legal paternity. ADOPTION I have served as an attorney and a guardian ad litem in several adoption actions. These actions have involved both blood relative/stepparent adoptions as well as adoptions through private agencies. Some of these actions have also included actions for termination of parental rights -- such as for failure to visit and failure to support. Most of the actions have been uncontested, but (see below) I also have experience with highly contested and complicated adoption issues. ABUSE & NEGLECT I have served as 608 counsel (as an attorney and as a guardian ad litem), as substitute counsel and as privately retained counsel in actions for abuse and neglect. I have represented parents and third parties accused of abuse or neglect; I have represented third party caregivers seeking to intervene in abuse and neglect actions. I have represented alleged victims of abuse and neglect, including infants, young children, teenagers and the elderly. Some of these actions have been brief and concluded after one hearing. Others have lasted for several years at a time and required numerous hearings. My court appearances in these actions have included uncontested issues (such as agreements to treatment plans) as well as contested hearings (in removal actions, termination of parental rights, and permanency planning (issues such as relief from services, reunification/return to home, placement with third parties). Some contested hearings have lasted as little as 1 hour; others have extended over several days. JUVENILE JUSTICE I have not served as counsel of record in any Juvenile Justice matters. However, I have gained some knowledge and experience in this area through my work on Abuse and Neglect cases, especially as a guardian ad litem where DJJ has been involved. I have attended hearings on the companion DJJ action, reviewed DJJ records, and met with caseworks involved in the companion DJJ actions.
Ms. Tiffany reported the frequency of her court appearances in the past five years as follows:
Ms. Tiffany reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters in the past five years as follows:
Ms. Tiffany reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. Tiffany provided that she most often served as chief counsel.
The following is Ms. Tiffany's account of her five most significant litigated matters: My partner Tom Traxler and I represented the Husband in this action, which involved a 10 year marriage; divorce on the grounds of (Wife's) adultery; equitable division of assets, as well as attorneys fees. The Husband had substantial real estate and other assets he had acquired prior to the parties' marriage. The Wife claimed, based on transmutation and special equity, that the Court should equitably divide the Husband's premarital real estate. My partner and I defended against these claims, arguing that the Husband's premarital real estate should be excluded from division. The property issues also included division of other assets, including a number of horses that had to be valued, auctioned and sold during the action; investment accounts and real estate acquired by the Wife with marital earnings during the marriage; and other real estate which the Wife contracted to buy prior to the date of filing of the action but did not close on until after the action was filed. The Family Court found a 10% special equity interest in the Husband's premarital real estate which was included in the marital estate, but rejected the Wife's claim that the entire property had been transmuted. The Court also found that other assets acquired by the Wife during the marriage (including the real estate contracted before but closed after the action was filed, and rental income received by the Wife) were marital assets to divide. The Wife appealed the Family's Court's ruling as to transmutation of the Husband's premarital real estate; the amount of special equity interest awarded; the inclusion of the Wife's real estate and rental income in the marital estate; and the overall apportionment in the marital estate. Mr. Traxler and I continued to represent the Husband in the appeal. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion in August of 2002, reversing the Family Court's decision to include as marital assets the real estate that the Wife had contracted to buy but did not close on until after the action was filed; remanding to the Family Court to determine if the Husband had a special equity interest in this real estate; reversing the Family Court's decision to include the Wife's post filing rental income in the marital estate; affirming the Family Court's finding that the Husband's premarital real estate had not been transmuted; affirming the Family Court's calculation of the Wife's special equity interest in this real estate; and affirming the Family Court's equal division of the marital estate.
I consider this one of my most significant cases because of the property issues my partner and I had to address both in the lower court and on appeal. It was my first extensive experience with the discovery, research and preparation of transmutation and special equity issues. I also had to deal with other unique property issues, such as farm equipment and horses, and the analysis of investment accounts and earnings. It was also my first experience with preparing appellate briefs. I was appointed as counsel for Defendant Michael Truitt in this action. DSS sought termination of Mr. Truitt's parental rights to his twin sons and infant daughter when in June of 2001, Mr. Truitt and the children's mother (Defendant Ivester) left all three children in the care of Mr. Truitt's mother and failed to return by the next morning. DSS took custody of the children and filed the action to terminate parental rights in July of 2001, alleging that Mr. Truitt had abandoned his children as defined in 20-7-1572(7) and alternatively, that Mr. Truitt had harmed his children pursuant to 20-7-1572(1). A two day contested merits hearing was held in November of 2001. Mr. Truitt was incarcerated during the time this action was pending and heard. At trial, I argued that Mr. Truitt could not have abandoned his children as they were in the legal custody of their mother at the time pursuant to a previous court order. The Family Court terminated Mr. Truitt's parental rights, finding that Mr. Truitt had abandoned his children; that he had harmed them, and that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests. After the Family Court issued its Order, I advised Mr. Truitt of his post trial rights. I filed a Motion to Reconsider which was heard and denied by the Family Court. I then filed a Notice of Appeal on Mr. Truitt's behalf, and petitioned for In Forma Pauperis status for Mr. Truitt. The Court of Appeals granted In Forma Pauperis status to Mr. Truitt and instructed me to proceed with his appeal pursuant to In Re Cauthen which required DSS to pay for the cost of the transcript and the record on appeal. I requested and reviewed the transcript of the Family Court proceedings; prepared initial and final briefs; and assembled the Record on Appeal on Mr. Truitt's behalf. In September of 2004, I appeared before the Court Of Appeals for oral argument. In October of 2004, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion (see below) affirming the decision of the Family Court to terminate Mr. Truitt's parental rights.
I was not successful on Mr. Truitt's behalf in the lower court or on appeal. Yet I look back on this case as a true turning point in my practice. It was the first time I had a lengthy contested DSS matter; the first time I dealt "in depth" with the issue of termination of parental rights; the first appeal I handled completely on my own; and the first (and so far only) oral argument I have presented to our appellate courts. But most importantly, it was the first time I realized the importance of our rule 608 providing counsel for indigent parties -- and the obligation I had as an attorney for each one of my clients, regardless of their background, education, circumstances or station in life. Judge Williams was kind enough to include a footnote in the opinion he issued for the Court of Appeals commending me (and Ms. Ivester's attorney, also appointed by Rule 608) for our "thorough and zealous representation" of our court appointed clients. Those words spoke to me and have guided me through my later years of practice. I have endeavored to live up to them with each and every client. This case involved a short marriage of less than 5 years. The parties had one child, who was 6 months old at the time this action was filed. A Final Hearing took place in two installments, the first in 2008, spanning 7 days, the second installment in 2009 nearly a year later, lasting 1 day. I represented the Wife. For most of the time this action was pending the Husband represented himself. I consider this case to be one of my most significant because of the sheer volume of work, time and effort involved. This case involved nearly every family law issue -- common law marriage; domestic violence; custody, with allegations of mental illness and alienation, requiring evaluations and testimony by experts as well as a lengthy and thorough investigation by a guardian ad litem; support, with issues of imputation of income; non marital and marital property, with assets of different types, including stocks, trusts, closely held business (requiring valuation by an expert), real estate (in SC and in a foreign country), insurance policies, annuities, stocks, investment accounts; attorneys fees, with experts retained on issues of custody and valuation of assets. Although the Husband represented himself for much of the action, he filed numerous and voluminous motions with the Court, seeking relief and making allegations which required constant efforts to protect my client's interests as well as those of the minor child in my client's custody. From the time of filing to the conclusion of the Final Hearing, the Husband filed over 50 pro se Motions, Oppositions or Contempt actions, which were denied or dismissed by the Family Court. He also attempted to appeal a Temporary Order to the SC and United States Supreme Courts. My client, staff and I had to constantly monitor assets which were in the Husband's name and under his control to try and prevent the Husband from disposing of assets in violation of temporary restraining orders that were in place. We were able to intervene before some assets were liquidated, but unfortunately the Husband did succeed in disposing of others. During the 2 and 1/2 years before the Final Hearing began in this matter, there was scarcely a day when I did not have to devote some time to this case. After the first installment of the Final Hearing, when final custody was awarded to my client and final child support was assessed, the Husband left the country, but continued to file motions from overseas. The Husband did not appear at the conclusion of the Final Hearing. But after the Final Order was issued (which was over 100 pages long, and included an award of attorneys fees and litigation costs against the Husband as well as findings of contempt), the Husband initiated an appeal to the SC Court of Appeals which was dismissed because the Husband refused to comply with the Appellate Court Rules requiring him to pay for the costs of the transcript. The Husband then attempted to seek a "Writ of Review" with the SC Supreme Court, which was denied. My partners and I represented the Wife during both appellate actions, which lasted for nearly a year.
It was during this case that I felt that I truly embraced my role as an advocate for my client, providing her with the protection and help she needed, without regard for the time or cost (or fees that would likely go unpaid). When the Husband's behavior made me concerned for my own welfare and my partners stepped in to assist me without a moment's hesitation, I was touched and humbled by their willingness to share in my responsibilities despite their own heavy caseloads. I was appointed as guardian ad litem for Baby Boy in this action, which was filed by adoptive parents seeking to adopt Baby Boy, who was the biological child of Mr. Reeves and Ms. Addis. Mr. Reeves contested the adoption, and sought custody of Baby Boy. Although Ms. Addis signed a Relinquishment of Parental Rights and Consent for the Roes to adopt Baby Boy prior to the filing of the action, she initially supported Mr. Reeves claims for custody of Baby Boy. The Family Court awarded temporary custody of Baby Boy to the Roes but also awarded visitation privileges to Mr. Reeves and required him to pay child support for Baby Boy while the action was pending. I conducted an extensive investigation on behalf of Baby Boy, who was born just days before this action was filed and who was 8 and 1/2 months old at the time of the Final Hearing. My investigation included several interviews with the parties; visits to both parties' homes; interviews of numerous witnesses; reviewing transcripts of depositions taken; reviewing medical and other records; observing visitation exchanges; reviewing the statutes and case law pertaining to adoption; preparing a lengthy report detailing my investigation and its findings; and attending, participating in and testifying at the 2 day final hearing. The Family Court found that Mr. Reeves' consent was required in order for the Roes to adopt Baby Boy; that Mr. Reeves did not consent to the adoption; denied the Roes' request for adoption, and awarded custody of Baby Boy to Mr. Reeves. When Mr. Reeves assumed custody of Baby Boy, Baby Boy had just celebrated his 1st birthday. The Roes appealed the Family Court's Order to the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of SC took certiorari and issued an opinion in May of 2011 (when Baby Boy was 2 years old) reversing the Family Court, finding that Mr. Reeves' consent to adopt was not required and ordering Baby Boy returned to the custody of the Roes. Mr. Reeves petitioned for rehearing and later for Writ of Certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, both of which were denied.
Although I had served as guardian ad litem many times before this case, and had always done my best to fulfill my obligations in conducting my investigations; preparing my reports and representing the best interests of each one of my wards, it was in this case that I felt even more than I had before the weight of the responsibility of a guardian ad litem. I also realized how crucial it was for a guardian ad litem to fully and diligently comply with her obligations and to actively participate in the Final Hearing by cross examining witnesses and being prepared to testify (and submit to cross examination) regarding her investigation, observations and recommendations. Although the Family Court denied Baby Boy's adoption against my recommendation, I felt confident that I had fully and thoroughly represented my ward's interest. And when the Supreme Court reversed the Family Court, based in part on information I had presented in my report, I was grateful that I had taken the time and effort (and detailed notes) I had taken in my investigation. I represented the Husband in this action, which involved a relatively brief marriage. Although issues were raised as to divorce. property division, alimony and attorneys fees, the primary issue was custody of the parties' special needs child, who suffered from Down's Syndrome as well as a number of other medical, physical and behavioral issues. At the time the case was filed, the child was 3 years old. The case was pending for nearly 3 years, and at the time of the Final Hearing in July of 2012, the child was 6 years old. I consider this case to be the most significant custody action I have handled. The custody issue which is difficult enough by itself, was complicated by the special needs of the child (which required an enormous amount of research and preparation on the child's medical, educational, therapeutic and living needs, as well as the parties' access to resources and abilities to meet these needs); the geographic distance between the parties (the Wife lived in SC, the Husband in Virginia), and the circumstances that arose during the 3 years the action was pending. A guardian ad litem was appointed who conducted a lengthy and very detailed investigation. The Wife was represented by 3 different attorneys in the action. While the action was pending, the Wife claimed she had been diagnosed with and was being treated for cancer. She used this as a basis for delaying mediation but then refused to answer discovery requests inquiring about her medical conditions. At the request of the guardian ad litem, the parties submitted to forensic psychological and custody evaluations by a mental health expert. Both parties were deposed and literally volumes of medical and educational records for the minor child were compiled and exchanged in discovery. The parties were awarded temporary joint custody, with primary placement remaining with the Wife and Husband receiving specific placement privileges 1 to 2 times per months and more extended placement on holidays and during summers. The Husband did not initially seek sole custody, hoping that the issue could be resolved amicably. But while the action was pending, the Husband became concerned about the Wife's behavior toward him as well as toward the child (who had excessive absences from school and therapy). He decided to seek primary custody of the parties' child. The Final Hearing was scheduled and continued two times before it was finally heard in June of 2012, over a period of 4 days. The final hearing involved lengthy testimony by both parties, the examination and cross examination of mental health experts, the guardian ad litem as well as third party witnesses. Over 70 exhibits were entered into evidence. The Family Court awarded the Husband (who lived in Virginia) primary placement of the parties' child (who had been in the temporary primary placement of the mother in SC for nearly 3 years) and adopted the parenting plan proposed by the Husband. I was instructed to prepare the Final Order, which was nearly 50 pages long (excluding exhibits and attachments) which has been submitted to the presiding judge. This case required years of patience and diligence, not only from me but also from my client whose primary concern the entire time was the health, safety and well being of his child. I am proud to have represented this client and to have been a part of helping him secure his child's medical, educational and physical care.
The following is Ms. Tiffany's account of the civil appeals she has personally handled:
I was co-counsel with my partner, Thomas Traxler, for Mr. Greene in the underlying action before the Family Court. Mr. Greene retained us to represent him in the appeal as well. I was largely responsible for preparing the brief(s) submitted on behalf of Mr. Greene. Mr. Traxler attended the oral argument before the Court of Appeals
I was counsel of record for Defendant/Appellant Michael Truitt, appointed by rule 608 in the underlying Family Court action. At my client's request (who was incarcerated at the time) I filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal and handled the appeal, including review of the (very lengthy) transcript, preparation of the briefs, preparation of the Record on Appeal and the oral argument before the Court of Appeals.
I served as the guardian ad litem for Baby Boy in the underlying action. I was listed in the appeal as the guardian ad litem and was served with all filings and notified of all proceedings. I did not prepare any briefs in this matter, although I was served with the briefs prepared by the parties' counsel and reviewed them thoroughly. I attended the oral argument before the SC Supreme Court, but did not present any argument, although I was prepared to do so if called upon by the Court. In the SC Supreme Court, Appeal from the Greenville County Family Court, Supplemental Temporary Order of Timothy L. Brown dated April 2, 2007. Order Dismissing Appeal issued by the SC Supreme Court on August 24, 2007. Order Requiring payment of Attorneys fees by Husband/Appellant to Wife/Respondent issued on October 17, 2007.
Tom Traxler and I were both listed as counsel of record. I was primarily responsible for the preparation of correspondence and submissions to the Supreme Court. In the SC Court of Appeals, Appeal from the Greenville County Family Court, Final Order of William J. Wylie, dated May 14, 2009. Order(s) Dismissing Appeal and denying Motion to Reconsider issued by the SC Court of Appeals on October 5, 2009; November 12, 2009; and December 8, 2009.
Tom Traxler and I were both listed as counsel of record. I was primarily responsible for the preparation of correspondence and submissions to the Court of Appeals. In the SC Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Review(Certiorari). Order denying Petition for Writ of Review issued on March 8, 2010. Tom Traxler and I were both listed as counsel of record. I was primarily responsible for the preparation of correspondence and submissions to the Supreme Court. Ms. Tiffany reported she has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Ms. Tiffany further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
I applied for Family Court At Large Seat 4 in August of 2012. I was found Qualified and nominated by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. The Honorable Monet Pincus was elected to this seat on January 30, 2013.
The Commission believes that Ms. Tiffany's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizens Committee found Ms. Tiffany "Well-Qualified" for the evaluative criteria: physical health, mental stability, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. Ms. Tiffany is married to Peter Clifford Tiffany. She has two children.
Ms. Tiffany reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Family Law Council member 2009 through present
Family Law Council Secretary, elected to term 2013-14;
Ms. Tiffany provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Member 2006 to present
Red Ribbon Week Coordinator 2007 to Present; Member 2000 to present Vacation Bible School Volunteer 2010 and 2011 Nursery Volunteer 2010 - 2011
Children's Church Leader 2012 - present; Fund Raiser/Participant in 2011 Savannah Rock n Roll Half Marathon Raised over $4000, trained for and completed Half Marathon course. Ms. Tiffany further reported: I have practiced almost exclusively as a Family Court lawyer for 17 years. My partners and I have set high standards for each other and our practice that I have strived to attain. I have tried to improve my knowledge and experience by tackling difficult issues in litigation and by researching and presenting on novel legal issues at CLE's.
I intend to bring to the bench the same drive and eagerness to learn that I have applied to my 16 years of private practice. If I have the honor of serving as a Family Court Judge, I plan to devote myself to my responsibilities for as long as I am nominated and elected to serve.
The Commission commented that Ms. Tiffany is known as a sharp Family Court practitioner with experience in all areas of family law. They noted that she had one of the most impressive presentations at the Public Hearing. The Commission found Ms. Tiffany qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court.
15th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Emery meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. Emery was born in 1969. She is 44 years old and a resident of Myrtle Beach, SC. She provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1994. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Emery. She 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. Emery reported that she has spent $127.00 in campaign expenditures for stationary and postage.
Ms. Emery testified that she has not:
Ms. Emery 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. Emery to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Ms. Emery described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
Ms. Emery reported that she has taught the following law-related courses: M. Emery reported that she has published the following:
SC Family Lawyer's Toolkit, Second Edition; Published by the SC Bar in 2010. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Emery did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Emery did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Emery has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Emery 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. Emery reported that her rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, is BV (4.4). Ms. Emery reported that she has held the following public office:
Francis Marion University Board of Trustees - May 1998 to June 2013. All reports were timely filed.
Ms. Emery appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Emery appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Emery was admitted to the SC Bar in 1994.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: Ms. Emery further reported regarding her experience with the Family Court practice area: I have practiced in the Family Court area since 1995, and exclusively since 1996. DIVORCE/SEPARATE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE/EQUITABLE DIVISION: The majority of my cases fall into this category. I have dealt with each ground for divorce as allowed by statute in my cases throughout my practice as a Family Court practitioner. Some of my cases have been so disturbing that I feared for the life of my client. I have had to seek Ex Parte Orders and Emergency Hearings on the most severe cases. As part of most divorce cases, the issue of equitable division of assets and debts must be dealt with. My cases dealing with this issue have ranged from parties with little by way of assets and debts to parties with estates worth millions of dollars. Some of the cases have included businesses that must be evaluated and buy outs discussed. I have also handled cases that deal with common law marriage and these are very difficult once the relationship goes sour. CHILDREN'S ISSUES: Many of the divorce cases I have handled also included issues involving the minor children of the parties. In most cases, there is generally a primary caretaker of the children, but more and more there is a blending of duties between parents in regarding to the children. Because both parents are such an integral part of raising children while they are married, it is hard to explain to parents that their time and rights to their children could be drastically cut when going through a divorce. In addition to the contested custody cases, I have also dealt with complex issues involving children such a child endangerment, drug and alcohol abuse , parental alienation, visitation restrictions and adoptions. I have also dealt with many modification actions wherein parties have moved from the area or have had other substantial changes of circumstance. I have handled many adoption cases, as I have a personal interest in this area. (I have a few family members who are adopted, including my own daughter.) I have tried two complex termination of parental rights cases in the last few years. I have also done adult adoptions. I have represented parents seeking to change the name of their child, one of which resulted in a contested trial. Another role in which I have addressed children's issues is as a guardian ad litem. I have served as a guardian ad litem for contested custody cases and adoptions for over fifteen years. I have participated in trials as the Guardian for the minor children involved in the action, and have conducted investigations so that I could represent the best interests of my charge. I have served as a Guardian in termination of parental rights actions, to include one particular case in which twin girls were horribly burned, allegedly by one or both of their parents. DSS/ JUVENILE JUSTICE: All Family Court appointments dealing with the Department of Social Services and juvenile justice came to me for many years in my prior firm. I have handled many cases as the attorney for a litigant in a DSS case or I have served as the guardian ad litem for the minor child(ren) in abuse and neglect cases. I have conducted investigations on behalf of the client. I strongly believe that any attorney appointed to these cases should serve their client just as any paid client is served. Often these people need help the most, and I know that these children are the neediest in the court system. I have handled cases as the attorney for a juvenile who has been arrested, and have also served as the GAL for the juvenile when their parent or guardian is not present or was the victim of the alleged crime. MEDIATION: Horry County is a pilot county for mediation, and I have served as a certified Family Court mediator for approximately thirteen years. I must say that I truly enjoy this aspect of family law. It is rewarding to help parties reach a resolution that can begin the healing process, especially for their children. The litigants may not always get what they want; however, if they have had a hand in reaching a resolution, the end result is usually very successful and contempt actions tend to be avoided.
Ms. Emery reported the frequency of her court appearances as follows:
Ms. Emery reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters as follows:
Ms. Emery reported the percentage of her practice in trial court as follows: Ms. Emery provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Emery's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
This was a divorce case wherein the primary issue was the transmutation of property owned by the Husband prior to the marriage. Wife claimed that the Husband's business had transmuted due to the fact that she had helped create a section of the business during the marriage and helped him work that part of the business. However, the section created added no value to the business and actually lost money for the business. Wife's argument of working with the business should be enough to transmute the business to marital property although she never invested any money into the business and never took on any liability related to the business but did a minimal task with the business. The Court found that the business had not transmuted but did give Wife a special equity in the income derived from her efforts.
This was a divorce wherein the parties separated due to the sexual and mental abuse of the parties' minor child by the Defendant Father. While the private divorce case was pending, there were separate actions involving SCDSS and criminal charges against the Defendant Father. While the Family Court had found that the Defendant Father had abused his son, he still continued to fight in the divorce action to have access to the minor child even though he was under a court order to receive services which he refused. He contested each and every issue before the Court and this added to the level of difficulty because of the threat of harm against the Plaintiff Mother and the minor child. He challenged the notion that the marriage was broken by his acts against the minor child as those acts did not constitute grounds for divorce under the laws of SC.
This case dealt with a modification of alimony requested by the Plaintiff. At the time of the divorce, the parties agreed that the Plaintiff would pay permanent periodic alimony to the Defendant. They agreed that alimony would continue until such time as Defendant remarried or either party died, as that was the current statute at the time. Subsequently, the alimony statute was changed to include the current cohabitation clause as a way to terminate alimony. Defendant had been living with her paramour for over fifteen years but would not marry him because she would lose her alimony. Plaintiff sought to terminate the alimony because of the change in the statute regarding cohabitation as well as the fact that she was living in a relationship that was tantamount to marriage. Defendant argued that the cohabitation term did not apply to her because the law was changed after their Final Order was entered. This case challenged the Family Court judge to determine if the statutory change was retroactive to orders that came before it. During the trial, and after briefs on the topic were submitted and argued, the parties agreed to a resolution that found the relationship was tantamount to marriage and an agreement was reached. Alimony was subsequently terminated. Therefore, the issue of the statute being retroactive did not have to be addressed.
This case dealt with a divorce, alimony and equitable distribution. The problematic aspect of this case was based upon the fact that the parties owned several businesses in a flea market setting which took in a lot of cash that may or may not have been accurately reported. While the parties were able to maintain a very comfortable lifestyle during the course of the marriage, the values and incomes of their businesses were sketchy at best. With difficulty, the attorneys and the Court had to pick through financial records and proof of lifestyle, to include items purchased throughout the marriage, to determine what values could be assigned to their property as well as what income could be used in determining support obligations. This case dealt with the termination of parental rights of both parents and the adoption of the minor child by her maternal uncle and aunt. The parents of the child had been involved in litigation over the child for an eight year period of time. Both of them eventually abandoned the litigation as well as the minor child. Mother had an order allowing supervised visitation; however, she made only sporadic efforts to see her daughter. Father had supervised custody (due to sexual abuse allegations) and was to be supervised by his wife. The step-mother raised the minor child for a period of two years with no monetary support from either parent and little or no visitation with either parent. Mother's brother and sister-in-law petitioned to terminate the parents' parental rights and adopt the minor child. Both parents came forward to contest the action. Eventually, Father voluntarily gave up his parental rights. Mother fought the action in a four day trial. The Court terminated her parental rights on six separate grounds and granted the adoption. The following is Ms. Emery's account of the civil appeal she has personally handled: Daniel Griffin v. Terri Lopez (02-DR-26-1152). In this case I represented the Defendant who filed a Rule to Show Cause contempt action against the Plaintiff after the case was finalized. The Plaintiff was found to be in contempt and he appealed the ruling. After initial briefs were filed by the parties, the Plaintiff dismissed the appeal allowing the contempt finding to stand. Ms. Emery reported that she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Ms. Emery further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
The Commission believes that Ms. Emery's temperament would be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Ms. Emery to be "Qualified" as to constitutional qualifications, physical health, mental stability, and character, and "Well Qualified" as to ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated, "Character rated as qualified rather than well-qualified due to concerns voiced by community members. The Committee stated in summary, "This committee believes Ms. Emery has the experience, ability, and temperament necessary to fulfill the requirements of a judge in Family Court." Ms. Emery is not married. She has two children.
Ms. Emery reported that she was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations:
Ms. Emery provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Ms. Emery further reported: With the exception of my first year in practice, I have dedicated my entire professional life to practicing in Family Court and have practiced in no other area. I am very passionate about this area of the law. We deal with people's children, livelihood, and assets that they have worked their entire lives to acquire. They are truly at their most vulnerable and have put their complete trust in their lawyer to take care of their family issues and the presiding judge to make a fair decision. Having gone through the process of adopting a child and also a divorce myself, I have been on the "litigant" side of Family Court as well. Therefore, I am well acquainted with the fact that someone going into the Family Court arena has to put their trust in the system and the fact that the judge presiding over the matter has the requisite knowledge of law and concern for the litigants. I believe that my life experience has prepared me to be a judge who will understand the fact that those appearing in front of me are not just a caption and case number but people who need to know that the judge is compassionate and will strive to be as fair as possible. I will also provide information as to an incident that happened approximately 13 years ago. While I do not believe that it would have a negative impact upon my ability to serve as a judge, it was brought to the attention of the Committee last year during my judicial screening, and I would like to include it in my application at this time as well:
In the spring of 2000 I was retained by a young woman who had just been served with an Ex Parte Order removing her child from her custody and placing the child with his father. There was also a Notice of Emergency Hearing which set the hearing for two or three days from the date of service. The supporting document for this Ex Parte Order was an affidavit by this woman's ex-boyfriend (not the child's father). She denied the allegations and stated that this man had since come to her and apologized for helping the child's father take custody and signing such an affidavit. He then stated that he would be willing to sign a new affidavit renouncing the first affidavit. An affidavit was prepared by my office, and my assistant personally delivered the affidavit to the man. He was working and said that he needed time to review and would deliver it back to us as the hearing was the next day. He delivered the signed affidavit to my client who brought it to me. While I did not see him sign it, I did verify that he had signed the document, compared the signatures from the previous affidavit, and I notarized the statement. This was a huge mistake and I know that and I regret it. Subsequently, the hearing was held and this man was called into Court to address the issue of the two affidavits. He admitted to the Court that he had signed them both. He had previously stated to the guardian ad litem that he had signed both affidavits as well. The Court referred the man to the Solicitor's Office due to the fact that he had signed both documents. I went to the Solicitor's Office on my own accord and advised them that this man had not signed the second document in front of a notary. While I knew he had signed both documents, I felt that I had an obligation to advise the Solicitor handling the matter of what had transpired. I could not in good conscience allow this information to go unknown. The notarizing of that affidavit was a mistake I made early on in my career and it taught me a huge lesson that I have never forgotten or made again.
The Commission commented that Ms. Emery is known as a very competent Family Court practitioner. They noted her strong background as a mediator and guardian ad litem. The Commission found Ms. Emery qualified and nominated for election to the Family Court.
15th Judicial Circuit, Seat 3 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the chairman of the Commission determined the public hearing for Judge Norton was unnecessary as there was no request made for a hearing by at least six members of the Commission, his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, and there was no substantial reason for having a public hearing regarding his candidacy. Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Norton meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Norton was born in 1952. He is 61 years old and a resident of Murrells Inlet, SC. Judge Norton provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1977. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Norton. Judge Norton 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 Norton reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Norton testified that he has not:
Judge Norton 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 Norton to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Norton described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
Judge Norton reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
Judge Norton reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Norton did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Norton did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Norton has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Norton 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 Norton reported that his last available rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was BV.
Judge Norton appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Norton appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Norton was admitted to the SC Bar in 1977.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Judge Norton reported that he has held the following judicial offices: I served as a Special Referee appointed by the Circuit Court Judge to hear cases involving timeshare homeowners association lien foreclosures for the Court of Common Pleas. I served periodically from 2000-2007 prior to being elected to the Family Court in 2008. I had jurisdiction consistent with that of the Circuit Court in foreclosure cases. Judge Norton provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions: Opinions generated while serving as a Special Referee involved lien foreclosures by homeowners' associations for fees. The homeowners failed to pay their monthly fees and the association filed liens and foreclosed same. My order resulted in the sale of the property to satisfy the lien. None of these have been reported. Judge Norton reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge: While serving as a Special Referee, I continued my law practice as a sole practitioner. I have had no outside employment since my election to the Family Court. Judge Norton further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
Prior to being elected to the Family Court, I offered as a candidate for the Board of Trustees for Coastal Carolina University. I withdrew my candidacy when it became evident I could not receive enough votes to be elected.
The Commission believes that Judge Norton's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Pee Dee Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Norton to be "Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of constitutional qualifications, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee found Judge Norton to be "Well Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in its summary, "Judge Norton is known to be very conscientious about his work and is well-liked and respected." Judge Norton is married to Sarah Lane Dowling Norton. He has two children.
Judge Norton reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Judge Norton provided that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations. Judge Norton further reported:
I have had the honor and privilege of serving as a Family Court Judge since my election in 2008. While I feel I am qualified for this position, I have also grown in my appreciation for the difficulties facing the individuals appearing before me. I always try to be fair, compassionate, honest, and professional. I am committed to the position and will continue to work hard and give my all to the job.
The Commission members commented that Judge Norton has an excellent reputation as a Family Court judge and that he has ably served on the bench since 2008. The Commission found Judge Norton qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court.
16th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. White meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. White was born in 1957. He is 56 years old and a resident of Union, SC. Mr. White provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1983. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. White. Mr. White 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. White reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. White testified that he has not:
Mr. White 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. White to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Mr. White described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
(SC Bar video presentation) 12/12/07;
Mr. White reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: Mr. White reported that he has published the following:
I have not published any books or scholarly articles; however, as president of the SC Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in 2002, I did author three President's Columns in "The Advocate," the original newsletter for the organization. The Commission's investigation of Mr. White did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. White did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. White has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. White 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. White reported that his rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, when last rated was BV-Distinguished.
Mr. White appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. White appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. White was admitted to the SC Bar in 1983. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: I have been in private practice as an attorney in Union, SC since my graduation from law school and admission to the SC Bar in 1983. Initially, I was hired in 1983 as an associate with the law office of William E. Whitney, Jr.. I was an associate with this office from 1983 to 1985. In 1985, I became a partner and the firm name was changed to Whitney and White. This association remained intact from 1985 through 1989. In January, 1989, Pete G. Diamaduros joined the firm and the firm name was changed to Whitney, White and Diamaduros. This partnership remained intact from 1989 through August 1992. In August 1992, Sammy G. Diamaduros joined the firm and the firm name was changed to Whitney, White, Diamaduros & Diamaduros. In May, 2000, Pete G. Diamaduros, Sammy G. Diamaduros and I established the firm of White, Diamaduros & Diamaduros. This partnership has remained intact from May 2000 to the present. Throughout my legal career, I have maintained a general practice. My areas of practice have included domestic litigation, criminal defense, civil trial practice with an emphasis in personal injury and workers' compensation, real estate law, and a modicum of trust and estates. Mr. White further reported regarding his experience with the Family Court practice area: I have had considerable experience in the Family Court practice areas of divorce and equitable division of property and child custody. Quite frankly, the actual number of Family Court cases that I have handled in these particular practice areas are too numerous for me to count over the almost thirty (30) years that I have practiced law. With respect to adoption, I have handled approximately twenty (20) adoptions, the vast majority of which have been intra-family adoptions (i.e. step-parents adopting stepchildren, grandparents adopting grandchildren, etc.). With regard to abuse and neglect cases, the majority of my experience in those areas has been as either appointed counsel for a parent accused of abuse or neglect, or as guardian ad litem and/or counsel for guardian ad litem for the alleged abused or neglected children. As court rules changed over the years regarding legal appointments, I opted to be placed on the criminal defense list rather than the civil list, and thus I have not been involved in any abuse and neglect cases over the last several years. With regard to juvenile justice, likewise, most of my experience with the juvenile justice system has been as appointed counsel for juveniles charged with crimes. However, over the past several years, most of these have been handled by the Public Defender's office. I have also had experience on rare occasions as retained counsel for juveniles, though that has probably been on fewer than a dozen occasions during my career. Accordingly, I do believe that my considerable experience in the areas of divorce and equitable division of property and child custody will serve me well as a Family Court Judge. Additionally, my experience with adoption, abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice cases, though fairly minimal when compared with the first two areas, at least gives me an understanding of the processes. I certainly am aware of where to find the legal resources necessary for study to further my understanding of these areas. Of course, my overall extensive experience in the general practice of law gives me a broad foundation upon which to build and expand my legal knowledge.
Mr. White reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Mr. White reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Mr. White reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Mr. White provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. White's account of his most significant litigated matters:
This was a death penalty case in General Sessions Court in Union County. I was appointed as lead counsel in 1990. George Brandt, III of Spartanburg, SC. was appointed as my co-counsel. Mr. Thompson was charged with the murder of an elderly gentleman (Mr. Adams) found dead from the infliction of some sixty-three (63) screwdriver stab wounds. Mr. Thompson was borderline mentally retarded and had a significant prior criminal history. However, after extensive investigation and research, we were able to secure evidence establishing an absolute alibi defense. Mr. Thompson was acquitted after a week of trial. Obviously, acquittals in death penalty cases are few and far between; however, this acquittal was justice at its finest, and I must say it continues to be the most significant case of my legal career.
Mr. Canupp was a young man charged with the murder of a neighbor. Due to the apparent downward trajectory of the bullet, the State had alleged that Mr. Canupp shot his neighbor from a position on a hill. I was sole counsel for this young man. I was able to obtain Mr. Canupp's acquittal by utilizing a defense of accident. In order illustrate to the jury that the fatal shot was actually fired from a position beneath the decedent (rather than from an elevated position as alleged by the State), I created a courtroom mannequin to use as demonstrative evidence. This mannequin was equipped with thumbscrews that allowed it to bend at the waist. In my cross-examination of the State's forensic pathologist, I had the witness demonstrate the path of the bullet by inserting a sharpened dowel through the body of the mannequin. I then assisted the state's witness in utilizing the thumbscrews to bend the mannequin at the waist, thus demonstrating that the trajectory of fatal shot could well have been upward in direction and thus fired from a position beneath the decedent. I represented Susan Smith in her divorce case. It was during the course of this divorce action that the tragic drowning of the Smith children occurred. Obviously, this case took a dramatic turn from the status of somewhat commonplace domestic litigation to an international media phenomenon. The valuable experience gleaned from this case was learning how to handle the media and still maintain the integrity of the justice system and the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege. There are many other litigated matters that I could relate; however, these three are easily the most significant of my legal career.
The following is Mr. White's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled: The following is Mr. White's account of the criminal appeal he has personally handled: State v. Kimbrell, SC Court of Appeals, 326 S.C. 344, 481 SE2d 456 (S.C. App. 1997). Mr. White further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
I was a candidate for Sixteenth Circuit Family Court Judge, Seat 1 in the Fall 1999. The legislative election was held in late January or early February of the 2000 legislative session. I was favorably reported out after screening, qualified and nominated; however, I voluntarily withdrew prior to the actual election.
The Commission believes that Mr. White's temperament would be excellent. The Piedmont Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Mr. White to be "Qualified" as to his constitutional qualifications and judicial temperament. The Committee found Mr. White to be "Well Qualified" in ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, physical health, and mental stability. The Committee stated in its summary, "The interviews conducted by the Committee indicated that Mr. White is a person of high character, with extensive experience in a range of Family Court Matters." Mr. White is married to Ann Brueckner White. He has two children.
Mr. White reported that he was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. White provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Mr. White further reported:
I have been reared by my saintly parents to live my life on the foundational principle that all human beings are created equal and that all human beings are entitled to be treated with fairness, dignity, courtesy, and respect. I have lived my life by that foundational principle. My life circumstances have put me in positions where I have had opportunities to relate with people ranging from high social standing and significant wealth to folks from third world countries who would be considered by many to live in circumstances that placed them as the "lowest of the low". I have mined value from all of these experiences and relationships which I believe would enable me to be a fair, just and equitable jurist.
The Commission commented that they were impressed by Mr. White's 30 plus years of legal experience in the Family Court arena. They noted that he was well-spoken at the public hearing which would serve him well as a Family Court judge. The Commission found Mr. White qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court.
The Honorable Ralph King Anderson, III
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the chairman of the Commission determined the public hearing for Judge Anderson was unnecessary as there was no request made for a hearing by at least six members of the Commission, his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, and there was no substantial reason for having a public hearing regarding his candidacy. Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as an Administrative Law Court judge.
Judge Anderson was born in 1959. He is 54 years old and a resident of Columbia, SC. Judge Anderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1984. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson. Judge Anderson 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 Anderson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Anderson testified that he has not:
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Anderson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
January 25, 2013;
Before the ODC January 29, 2010;
Judge Anderson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
Judge Anderson reported that he has published the following: The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson 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 Anderson reported that his last available rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, was AV.
Judge Anderson reported that he has held the following public office:
Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Anderson was admitted to the SC Bar in 1984. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
I began my legal career at the SC Attorney General's Office. During my career at the AG's office, I prosecuted numerous criminal cases of all types and handled a wide variety of civil litigation. My duties included: I also prosecuted Medical Board cases, wrote Attorney General Opinions and handled Criminal Appeals. On May 25, 1994, I was elected to Administrative Law Judge Seat No. 6 and re-elected in 1996, 2001, and 2006. Administrative Law Judges hear appellate, injunctive and trial cases in a broad range of administrative matters involving governmental agencies and private parties. On May 13, 2009, I was elected Chief Administrative Law Judge. Judge Anderson reported that he has held the following judicial offices: I was elected by the General Assembly to serve as an Administrative Law Judge, February 1, 1995, and served in that capacity until elected Chief Administrative Law Judge May 13, 2009. I have been serving a Chief Judge continuously since that date. Administrative Law Judges hear appellate, injunctive and trial cases in a broad range of administrative matters involving governmental agencies and private parties. The appellate jurisdiction includes appeals involving Medicaid; driver's license revocations and suspensions; licensing decisions from boards/commissions under the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation; Budget and Control Board's Employee Insurance Program; AFDC benefits; operation of day care facilities and foster home licensing; food stamps; and revocations or suspensions of teachers' certificates. The Administrative Law Court also hears appeals from final decisions of the Department of Corrections in "non-collateral" matters, and appeals from final decisions of the SC Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services permanently denying parole eligibility. The contested case litigation includes hearings involving environmental and health permitting; Certificates of Need; State Retirement Systems' disability determinations; Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; state and county tax matters; alcoholic beverage issues; and wage disputes.
Judge Anderson provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:
Judge Anderson further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
The Commission believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Midlands Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Anderson to be "Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of constitutional qualifications. The Committee found him "Well Qualified" in the remaining criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated: "According to the practitioners who appear before Judge Anderson, he is the gold standard among Administrative Law Judges. He excels in his knowledge and demeanor. It would be difficult to find a judge more personable than Judge Anderson." The Committee stated in its summary, "He [Judge Anderson] is extremely well qualified." Judge Anderson is married to Linda Corley Anderson. He does not have any children.
Judge Anderson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Judge Anderson provided that he is a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization: Shandon Baptist Church. Judge Anderson further reported:
I was one of the original six judges elected when the Administrative Law Court was implemented. During my tenure on the Court, I have worked arduously to fulfill my judicial duties. In particular, I have sought to issue well-reasoned orders which, I believe, reflect a commitment to following sound legal principles of our State's laws.
The Commission commented on Judge Anderson's intellect as he scored the highest of any candidate who completed the Commission's Practice and Procedure test this screening, and noted that he has very ably discharged his responsibilities as Chief Judge on the Administrative Law Court. The Commission found Judge Anderson qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Administrative Law Court, Chief Judge.
Wanda L. Adams (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Adams meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Adams was born in 1960. She is 53 years old and a resident of Mauldin, SC. Ms. Adams provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1993. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Adams. Ms. Adams 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. Adams reported that she has made $318.76 in campaign expenditures for: printing of candidacy announcements, ($247.32), and postage, ($71.44).
Ms. Adams testified that she has not: Ms. Adams testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. (3) Professional and Academic Ability: The Commission found Ms. Adams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Ms. Adams described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date 13th Circuit Annual Retreat 05/02/10;
Investigation and Prosecution 06/13/10;
Judicial Ethics For Lawyers 08/17/11;
Ms. Adams reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
Ms. Adams reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Adams did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Adams did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Adams has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Adams 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. Adams reported that she is not rated by any legal rating organization.
Ms. Adams appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Adams appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Adams was admitted to the SC Bar in 1993. She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: I was admitted to the SC Bar in January 1993. Shortly thereafter, I became the Staff Attorney for Greenville County Dept. of Social Services (DSS). I was the sole attorney for approximately 1 year. My duties included the litigation and settlement of more than 300 abuse and neglect cases in Greenville County Family Court. In 1994, I established a solo private practice in Greenville County. The majority of my practice involved domestic matters, primarily divorces and adoptions. During the first year of private practice, I contracted with DSS and Legal Services of Western Carolina. I handled housing discrimination cases under the Legal Services contract. The DSS contract required me to represent the interests of children in abuse/neglect and termination of parental rights actions under the DSS contract. While in private practice, I was appointed as guardian ad litem in numerous custody actions. Hundreds of families were also referred to me for finalization of adoptions. These referrals came from DSS and private adoption agencies such as Bethany Christian Services. I was also often requested to speak with prospective adoptive parents about the adoption process. In April 1995, I was appointed by Greenville SC City Council as an Asst. Municipal Court Judge. I presided over jury and bench trials and preliminary hearings, arising under city ordinances and criminal cases made under state law. I was called upon to preside when the full-time Municipal Judge was unavailable or disqualified, or in the event of docket overload. I served in the Cities of Greenville and Greer from 1995 until August 2005, while also maintaining my law office. From August until December 2004, I taught Family Law at Greenville Technical College, as adjunct faculty in the Paralegal program. I became an Assistant Solicitor with the 13th Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office in August 2005, where I remain employed. During the first year with the Solicitor's Office, I prosecuted criminal domestic violence cases. From 2006 until 2009, I was responsible for the prosecution of juveniles in the Greenville and Pickens County Family Courts. I am currently responsible for the prosecution of primarily drug and sex crime cases. Ms. Adams further reported regarding her experience with the Family Court practice area: I have extensive experience in all of the above-outlined areas: DIVORCE AND DIVISION OF PROPERTY While in private practice from 1994 until 2005, I represented both plaintiffs and defendants in the area of divorce and equitable division of property. An example of that experience was my representation of the defendant in Pamela Holmes vs. Nathan Holmes (2000-DR-04-871). This case involved dissolution of a marriage of more than 25 years. A multi-day hearing was required to equitably divide substantial marital assets, and determine alimony, child support, custody and visitation. CHILD CUSTODY In the area of custody, I served as guardian ad litem in many custody actions. I also represented numerous parties seeking custody. One example is Yolanda Hart vs. Will and Cora Wren (1995-DR-23-6065). I represented the Wrens, who were the paternal aunt and uncle of minor children placed in their care by the custodial father. Upon the death of the father, the mother petitioned the Court for custody. ADOPTION In the area of adoption, I have many years of experience preparing pleadings, notifying birth parents, relinquishment of parental rights, and finalization of adoption actions. One unique example is an adult adoption, Alee Gearhart vs. Judy Mahaffey Thompson (1994-DR-23-3072). This case involved the reunification of an elderly birth mother and adult adoptee. I represented the birth mother in the adoption of her birth daughter, whom she had relinquished for adoption as an infant. ABUSE AND NEGLECT In the area of abuse and neglect, I have many years of experience, having served as counsel for DSS, guardian ad litem appointments, and prosecuted crimes of abuse and neglect. An example of that diverse experience is DSS vs. Alberta Grimes (2000-DR-23-978). I was appointed guardian ad litem in this adult abuse case. I convinced the Family Court to remove the vulnerable adult from the care of her relative, due to abuse and neglect. I facilitated an alternative placement, while providing guidance to the court as to what was in her best interests. JUVENILE JUSTICE As to the area of juvenile justice, I served as a juvenile prosecutor from 2006 until 2009. I continue to assist the 13th Circuit with the prosecution of these cases, when the current juvenile prosecutor is unavailable. I also represented juvenile defendants while in private practice. An example of such prosecution is The State vs. Charles A. (2008-JU-23-627, 2009-JU-23-119). This juvenile was declared a juvenile delinquent in 2009, after a hearing for an Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature charge. He was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct later that year, and remains in state custody. I have many years of extensive Family Court experience, as outlined above. I am knowledgeable of the law and handled diverse cases, providing me with the background necessary to competently handle the duties of a Family Court Judge.
Ms. Adams reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Adams reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows: Ms. Adams reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: (a) jury: 25%; (b) non-jury: 75%. Ms. Adams provided that she most often has served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Adams' account of her five most significant litigated matters:
The Defendant was charged with Murder and Possession of A Weapon During The Commission Of A Violent Crime. The defendant was arrested and tried almost 2 years after the female victim's body was discovered. This was a circumstantial case, that developed with the assistance of investigative skills and cooperative witnesses. One such critical witness was a homeless man, later located in Illinois. I was able to convince this reluctant witness to return to Greenville for trial. His testimony proved to be instrumental in the defendant's conviction.
This was a Greenville County Probate action. I was appointed the Personal Representative (PR) of this estate after the decedent had murdered his estranged wife and two children. After a national manhunt, the decedent died of a self-inflicted gunshot. Although he had surviving relatives, no one was willing to serve as PR. During my appointment, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed against the estate, on behalf of the deceased wife and children. This appointment required me to defend the lawsuit, which resulted in a settlement. I was required to conduct an extensive multi-state identification of assets, facilitate the sale of out of state property, and settle this estate to the satisfaction of the court.
I petitioned the Anderson Co. Family Court to intervene in an adoption action opposed by SCDSS. The subject child was the sibling of a child earlier adopted by the family I represented. The subject child had special needs and had been placed in foster care. Once the subject child became legally free to be adopted, it was DSS' desire for the child to be placed with his sibling, while the foster parents sought adoption. The significance of this case was that the Court was faced with determining whether the child's best interests would be served by living with a blood relative/sibling or risk emotional trauma by being removed from the only family he knew. The court found that it was in the best interests of the child that he remain with the foster family, with special consideration given to his special needs.
The plaintiff wife sought a divorce on the ground of adultery. The significance of this case is that the parties had been married more than 25 years and parents to 3 children. Several days of litigation was necessary to determine multiple issues of distribution of substantial marital assets, alimony, child support and visitation. This was the first litigated case of its kind in Greenville County. The issue was landlord retaliation against a tenant, who had reported substandard living conditions to the authorities. I represented the tenant in a Magistrate Court jury trial. I successfully convinced the jury that the prohibited conduct had occurred, resulting in punitive damages and attorney fees. The significance of this case warranted media coverage. Ms. Adams reported that she has not personally handled any civil appeals. The following is Ms. Adams' account of the criminal appeal she has personally handled: State vs. Darnell Alston (Indictment Nos. 2001GS2305385 - 5387). In 2005, I was appointed to appeal the conviction of Darnell Alston, who had earlier plead guilty to several charges, including armed robbery, criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping. I was appointed due a conflict in Appellate Indigent Defense. The significance of this case was that the defendant was 14 years old when these home invasion crimes were committed; the defendant received a sentence of 90+ years and appealed, claiming he did not understand the possible outcomes of a guilty plea. It had been noted in the record that the defendant suffered from mental retardation. I unsuccessfully filed a brief, arguing that the defendant lacked the maturity and cognitive ability to recognize the gravity of his actions and the consequences. Ms. Adams reported that she held the following judicial office: I served as Assistant Municipal Court Judge for the Cities of Greenville and Greer, SC, from April 1995-August 005. I was appointed by the Greenville City Council. Municipal Court's jurisdiction is limited to cases arising under city ordinances and misdemeanors under state law.
Ms. Adams provided the list of her most significant orders or opinions:
The Commission believes that Ms. Adams' temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Ms. Adams to be "Well-Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Ms. Adams is not married. She does not have any children.
Ms. Adams reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Ms. Adams provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Ms. Adams further reported:
While reared in a single parent home, my mother consistently stressed the importance of accountability, as well as the importance of having empathy for the plight of others. This compassion led me to the profession of social work. After serving as a child and family advocate for several years, I believed the practice of law would afford me the opportunity to contribute even more. I attempted to utilize my private practice as a platform of empowerment. As a Municipal Court Judge, I served with the philosophy that while one must be accountable for his/her actions, rehabilitation must also be encouraged when appropriate. I believe that these traits, coupled with my legal knowledge, integrity, deliberate decision-making and temperament, makes me an ideal candidate for a Family Court Judge.
The Commission noted with approval the many comments from the Ballot Box Surveys concerning Ms. Adams' fairness and experience as a part-time municipal judge. They commented on her dedicated public service as an assistant solicitor prosecuting drug and sex crime cases. The Commission found Ms. Adams qualified to serve as a Family Court judge.
13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Clark meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Clark was born in 1969. He is 44 years old and a resident of Greenville, SC. Mr. Clark provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 2004. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark 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. Clark reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Clark testified that he has not:
Mr. Clark 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. Clark to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Mr. Clark described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date *Enrolled and paid for, but this is a future CLE not yet attended.
Mr. Clark reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
Mr. Clark reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Clark did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Clark did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Clark has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Clark 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. Clark reported that he is not rated by any legal rating organization. He further reported, "In the past, I have not needed the resource to market my practice; therefore I have never pursued a rating."
Mr. Clark appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Clark appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Clark was admitted to the SC Bar in 2004. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
All of my legal career has concentrated in domestic practice: I have devoted about 50-55% of my practice to the GAL program and 45-50% of my practice to private cases. About 2/3 of my private cases have been me serving as a private guardian ad litem in contested custody cases where other issues are in contest as well. Being able to talk with both sides of the case and review all of the materials from other attorneys helped me learn from some of the best family law practitioners around. I would fully participate in depositions, mediations and trials. I believe serving as a private Guardian is great training ground for being a judge. Aside from private Guardian cases, I have represented husbands and wives in almost every type of case in Family Court. I listed the more interesting cases I have worked on in my PDQ. Additional experience has been by serving as a Certified Family Court Mediator, both paid and as a volunteer at Upstate Mediation Center where all issues can and do arise. In addition to working on equitable distribution cases, I have a great deal of experience in running a closely held multi-million dollar business and understand sound accounting practices, financial issues and basic taxation. I believe I have worked on or been exposed to almost every issue that comes before Family Court. Below is a table of my work broken down by type as it relates to percentage of total income. I do not have 2005 and 2006 statistics readily available.
Robert A. Private Cases Private Contract Attorney Mr. Clark further reported regarding his experience with the Family Court practice area: My experience in law has been almost completely in Family Court. I have represented women, men and children. I have handled over 750 Family Court cases as an attorney or a private guardian ad litem. I have handled over 6,000 hearings as the attorney for the Volunteer GAL in abuse and neglect cases. In my private cases, I have worked in the following areas extensively: separate maintenance and support; divorce; custody; equitable division of property; adoptions; adult name change; minor child name change; legal services clients; pro bono clients; mediation of Family Court cases; mediation of abuse and neglect cases; child support; alimony; grandparent custody/visitation; visitation issues; contempt; paternity; private guardian ad litem in custody cases; guardian for adults; termination of parental rights; QDRO orders; relinquishment of parental rights. Although I have interacted with DJJ a great deal as GAL Attorney, I have less experience in Juvenile cases than all others listed above. I will certainly learn with due speed any area that is needed. In question 19 below, I have listed some interesting cases I have handled.
Mr. Clark reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Clark reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Clark reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five year as follows: Mr. Clark provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Clark's account of his five most significant litigated matters: Mr. Clark reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals. Mr. Clark further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
I ran for the Family Court At-Large Seat number four in the Fall of 2012 and was found Qualified, but not Nominated. I have not run for any other elective public office.
The Commission believes that Mr. Clark's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizens Committee found Mr. Clark to be "Well Qualified" in ethical fitness, physical health, and mental stability, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. Mr. Clark is married to Mary Fretwell Clark. He has three children.
Mr. Clark reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. Clark provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Mr. Clark further reported: I have lived in Greenville my entire life. Both of my parents are from Abbeville and my mother lives in Greenville. I grew up in the Gower Estates area attending First Baptist Church, Sara Collins Elementary, Beck Middle and J.L. Mann High. I went on to attend the University of SC and graduated in 1991 with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. During college, I received a scholarship to attend one semester abroad in London, England. After college, I came back to Greenville to work in my family's heating and air conditioning business. I have two older brothers, so my father split the company. I took over the service and replacement company (General Air Conditioning Service Corp.) while my brothers ran the new construction company (General Hearing & Air Conditioning of Greenville, Inc.). Just a few short years later, my father passed away in 1995. So far, I have led a remarkable life. I am grateful for the opportunities I have been given and the family and friends I have around me. I am married to Mary Fretwell Clark from both Anderson and Greenville and have three great kids: Mary Myers, Alex, and Christopher. Christopher was our foster child whom we adopted in 2011. Our children also attended or will attend Sara Collins, Beck and J.L. Mann. As a family, we enjoy going to the mountains, going on RV trips across the United States, international travel, bike riding, and just hanging out together. When I reached 30 years old, I had been successfully running the family business and decided I wanted to start giving back to our community that had been so giving to my family. I volunteered for the Greenville County Guardian Ad Litem Program to help abused and neglected children. I fell in love with my role and determined I could do more as attorney. So, I applied for and was accepted to the USC School of Law. I was accepted to the SC Bar in 2004 and the GAL Program hired me as the Greenville County Contract Attorney in 2005. I again fell in love with the law and helping families in times of need. I believe I will be a compassionate judge who applies the law as written while being respectful of the litigants and attorneys. I have experience in business management, dealing with employees and customers and seeing life outside of being an attorney. I like using technology and automation and I am considered by many the Apple geek with the latest gadget. I have successfully converted the legal files for the Guardian Program to paperless and utilize an online case management system to store virtual files, which the volunteer Guardians can access and collaborate with myself, my paralegal and the case manager at the Guardian Office. I now use an iPad from Apple in the court room to access case history and documents. These innovations have greatly improved communication, collaboration, efficiency and reduced costs. I would be eager to increase the use of technology both in and out of the court room to improve the judiciary. Since becoming an attorney, I no longer have any day-to-day responsibilities in the heating and air conditioning company and have fully focused on being an attorney. I have also volunteered as a Judge in Youth Court; volunteered as a mediator; volunteered at Mock Trial; Pro-bono work with the Fatherhood Coalition; volunteered as a board member (prior Chairman, currently Vice Chairman) at Upstate Mediation Center; implemented the Pilot Mediation Program in Greenville for DSS cases; and Volunteered training at CLEs and GAL programs. I am currently a member of the Family Court Bench Bar Committee in Columba.
I will work hard and get the job done as I have done all of my life. The Commission commented that Mr. Clark has a passion for Family Court and a dedication for protecting children. They noted that his easy temperament and disposition would serve him well as a Family Court judge. (12) Conclusion: The Commission found Mr. Clark qualified to serve as a Family Court judge.
13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Gooch meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Gooch was born in 1968. She is 45 years old and a resident of Simpsonville, SC. Ms. Gooch provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1994. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Gooch. Ms. Gooch 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. Gooch reported that she has made $270.65 in campaign expenditures: $6.90 for postage, $120.00 for stationary, $10.00 for fingerprint cards, and $133.75 for a professional photograph.
Ms. Gooch testified that she has not:
Ms. Gooch 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. Gooch to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Ms. Gooch described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
Ms. Gooch reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
Ms. Gooch reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Gooch did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Gooch did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Gooch has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Gooch 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. Gooch reported that she is not rated by any legal rating organization. Ms. Gooch reported that she has held the following public office:
From 1997 to November 2001, I was elected as Council Member for Ward II of the Simpsonville City Council. I was elected twice, serving an unexpired term from 1997 until 1998, and being elected for a full four-year term in 1998. I timely filed my reports with the State Ethics Commission.
Ms. Gooch appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Gooch appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Gooch was admitted to the SC Bar in 1994.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
As part of The Walsh Law Firm, LLP, I was a part-time contract public defender for juvenile defendants in the Greenville County Family Court. I met with accused juveniles and their families, negotiated with the Assistant Solicitor, prepared for trials, and otherwise represented juvenile defendants in delinquency hearings.
Ms. Gooch further reported regarding her experience with the Family Court practice area:
Ms. Gooch reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Gooch reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Gooch reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. Gooch provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Gooch's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
This case was significant to me for many reasons. First, we litigated these issues long before there were any opinions in SC regarding psychological parents. Secondly, we litigated these issues many years before same-sex marriages became a "hot topic" in determining legal rights, especially as to custody. Finally, although I won this case in Court, I have often wondered how the appellate court would have decided the issue had the estranged partner appealed the case, and I have wondered how the case would be decided now, some fifteen (15) years later. While litigating these issues, the husband and wife resumed cohabitation and conjugal relations. The wife's attorney wrote me a letter, indicating that the parties had "reconciled." They stayed together until the second child was born, at which time the wife became upset that the husband watched a football game during her labor. She alleged that he continued his adulterous conduct, although she had no independent proof of continuing adultery. The wife forced the husband out of the home and filed for a second hearing for temporary relief. I argued for the husband that the parties had reconciled and, consequently, his previous adultery could not be grounds for divorce after the reconciliation. The wife argued that their reconciliation had failed, and as such, she had not forgiven his previous adulterous conduct and could use it as the ground for divorce. She requested that the court make the property division considering the values as of the date of original filing. The court determined that the reconciliation had not failed and made the property division by valuing the property on the date of the second separation; however, the court also found that the wife was entitled to a divorce on the ground of adultery based, in part, on his on-going relationship with a woman with whom he had had a previous relationship that the wife had shown to be adulterous before the reconciliation, even though she did not have proof of a sexual relationship after the second separation The court also refused to impute a higher income to the wife but ordered the sale of both houses and an equal division of the resulting profit, if any.
This case is memorable because of the issue of when a reconciliation is a true reconciliation and a subsequent separation begins the property division and grounds for divorce anew, versus when it is a "failed reconciliation" and the original grounds for divorce and original property valuations remain intact. Unfortunately, my client's father died suddenly. Only after his death did my client realize that he and his sister were collectively 45% shareholders in their father's company. They also discovered that they were officers in the company. Their later testimony revealed that they had received "bonuses" almost annually, and they signed paperwork that their father asked them to sign, but they never inquired as to the nature of the bonuses or the paperwork they had signed. It was revealed that the paperwork included annual minutes of the father's company, which my client and his sister had signed unknowingly in the capacity of officers of the company. Because of on-going problems with the home, the homeowner sued the father's company, several subcontractors, and my client on nine separate causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and piercing the corporate veil. The homeowner, himself a Harvard-educated lawyer, hired a Greenville-area team of Ivy League attorneys to pursue his civil action. The local area expert on piercing the corporate veil was hired as part of the Plaintiff's team. We participated in extensive written discovery, as well as several depositions. My client was a simple, uneducated man with no money, no experience, and no business savvy. He had done what his father told him to do, and he tried to make the best of his father's business in finalizing and selling the remaining houses under construction after his father's death. He did not know whether his father had been using company or personal money to take trips, buy automobiles, furnish homes, or the like. He relied on the expertise of accountants to wrap up the business and close all accounts. Unfortunately, it appeared that the father had been using business funds for personal matters. One of the problems in collecting evidence concerning his misuse of corporate funds (and the extent of my client's knowledge about it) was that the father's long-term live-in girlfriend destroyed all of the business records -- except for two trash bags full -- after his death. She testified that did not destroy these "only because the shredder broke." We had a two-day trial, which had been referred to the Master-in-Equity. Plaintiffs presented several 5" 3-ring binders filled with exhibits, while my client and I relied on my cross-examination of their witnesses regarding my client's participation and knowledge of events, and my client's testimony. He was not custodian of the business records of his father's company, nor did he sign any contract with the authority to bind the company. We used the exhibits introduced by the Plaintiff, and after a grueling trial, the Court ruled in favor of my client by dismissing the claims against him.
This case is memorable to me because we won on skill, knowledge, and ability, faced with high-priced Ivy League attorneys and litigants. I would like to think that we also had truth and justice on our side. The father's relationship with the mother was a short-term, non-marital sexual relationship. His paternity was determined by genetic testing after the child's birth and after removal from the mother's custody. Shortly after the paternity determination, he requested custody. DSS' homestudy was unfavorable because of the father's criminal history and the DSS history with his live-in paramour. The father asked for a treatment plan. At the removal hearing, the Court determined that DSS would be allowed to forego reasonable efforts as to the father, as well as the mother; nevertheless, the Court found that there were certain things that the father would have been asked to do, had a treatment plan been ordered, and those tasks were incorporated into the order but not made mandatory. At the subsequent permanency planning hearing, DSS was ordered for file for TPR within ninety (90) days. DSS filed for TPR against the mother for severity and repetition of abuse and failure to remedy the causes for removal, and since the mother had eliminated all contact with the child after the removal hearing, DSS also asked for TPR on the grounds of failure to support, failure to visit, and abandonment. The only ground for TPR against the father was failure to remedy the causes for removal, and then that it would be in the best interest of the minor child. The father argued that he had completed most of the suggested treatment plan. I presented evidence and argued that, although he may have completed some of the tasks, he still had not exhibited a significant change in his behaviors that would make the home safe for the child. In fact, he continued to engage in behaviors that presumably would be harmful to the child, such as smoking cigarettes when the child is allergic, failing to maintain stable income and housing, and failing to distance himself from a woman with a DSS child abuse or neglect history, evidencing a possible lack of protective capacity. The court considered all of these factors and found that the best interest of the child would be for the parents' rights to be terminated. The termination of parental rights was granted. The father appealed the decision but later withdrew his appeal, and the child is now legally free to be adopted.
This case is memorable because of the arguments of the father who was not a legal custodian because he was not married to the mother, but who had no opportunity to display his protective capacity because the child was taken into emergency protective custody before the father had been given a chance to show he could provide a safe, stable home for the child. I believe that the court ruled in the best interests of the child. The quadruplets had been born prematurely, and the victim child was the second to be released home. She experienced reflux problems and was reportedly difficult to feed, even after all of the remaining quadruplets were released home. On a Friday in June, the mother left the home to run errands while the father took care of the children. According to the father, he walked the mother to the door and when he came back into the house, he saw the child vomiting severely. When he rushed to her side, he noticed her head lolling to the side, she was having difficulty breathing, and she became nonresponsive. He "snatched her up" out of her seat, and he dialed 911 but was disconnected. He put the child on top of a table, began doing CPR, and redialed 911. The operator dispatched emergency response teams and directed the father through CPR over the phone. He had been trained in infant CPR, and when the 911 operator instructed him to perform "side CPR," he questioned what that was but followed her instructions in performing chest compressions while the infant was on her side. The CPR did not produce any noticeable response in the baby. The emergency response teams arrived and rushed the baby to the ambulance. She was not breathing, and they had difficulty intubating her. After several attempts, they were finally able to intubate her, and they took her to Spartanburg Regional Hospital. The doctors performed several tests on the child, including CT scans, but they could not read the results because the pediatric radiologist was not available over the weekend. The mother became dissatisfied with Spartanburg Regional, and because of her positive experience with Greenville Memorial's neonatal care unit after the quadruplets were born, she requested that the baby be transferred. The baby was transferred on Sunday along with her test results. The child abuse pediatricians at Greenville Memorial were alarmed immediately. They discovered a significant subdural hematoma on the CT scan, severe scattered hemorrhaging in both retinas, and two fractured ribs, one at a healing age of approximately 2 weeks and one at a healing age of approximately 4 weeks. Other than the ribs, the remaining are classic symptoms of non-accidental head trauma, specifically "shaken baby syndrome." The parents' stories about what happened were also inconsistent with the notes from admission to Spartanburg Regional, which caused additional concern. The doctors expressed concern about the safety of the remaining quadruplets, based on studies on twins indicating that when one twin is abused, it is highly likely that the other twin is also abused. Extrapolating that to quadruplets and the increased need for care of and the stress relating to caring for all four infants, the doctors asked that the parents consent to skeletal surveys for the other three infants. The skeletal survey is essentially an extensive series of x-rays, and the parents resisted having their children exposed to that amount of radiation. They would not consent, and they hired a lawyer. I prepared an inspection warrant and obtained an affidavit from the child abuse pediatrician supporting the need for the skeletal surveys. Before filing the petition for the inspection warrant, I called the parents' attorney, and at his prompting and encouragement to be involved in the investigation stage, over the next several days we negotiated not only having the skeletal surveys but also having an extensive interview as part of our investigation. Although out of the ordinary to have attorneys involved during the investigation, the interviews of the parents involved the DSS investigator, the law enforcement investigator, me as attorney for DSS, and the parents' attorney. I found my involvement at the initial investigation very useful in later staffings within the agency when we were implementing safety plans and reaching a case decision. I established a rapport with the parents' attorney that results in crafting a reasonable, workable safety plan that prevented removal of all six children, kept the children at home together, maintained a much-needed routine for the twins as well as the quadruplets, and established a complex network of alternative caregivers with protective capacity to provide a safe home for the children. We had a large meeting at the home of the family, involving the DSS investigator, multiple levels of supervisors, the program coordinator, the interim county director, attorneys for DSS and the parents, the parents, the group of alternative caregivers, and the family's extended support system. I drafted a contract for the caregivers, parents, and DSS that became the safety plan to protect the children during our investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the case was indicated for physical abuse by the father (relating to the non-accidental head trauma) and physical abuse by an unknown perpetrator (relating to the broken ribs). The father entered an Alford acknowledgement to these findings, fully cooperated with DSS' recommendations for services, and the children remained in the home. This case is memorable because it started as an almost-certain case for emergency removal of all six children, but it ended up as an intervention where all of the children remained in the home with their parents, and treatment services were successfully completed to make the home safe. I learned to use a creative approach to a unique and complex situation. I became an active (and, I hope, helpful) participant in the investigation, safety plan, and case decision process. I credit the parents' attorney who prompted me to take a different approach, and ultimately I think that the best result was reached for this family in these awful circumstances. The following is Ms. Gooch's account of a civil appeal she has personally handled: The only appeal I have handled personally is in the matter of Crotts v. Crotts, and it was an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals. I think it was decided in 2003. The issue was whether the divorce granted to the husband (my client) on the ground of adultery was supported by sufficient evidence. The appellant (disgruntled wife) was successful in convincing the Court of Appeals that the husband (my client) had insufficient evidence to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she was committing adultery. The husband's evidence was that the alleged paramour resided in the home with the wife, and the wife referred to the alleged paramour as her "boyfriend." The Court of Appeals determined that, absent additional proof of a romantic relationship between the wife and the alleged paramour, this was insufficient proof to support a divorce on the ground of adultery. The Court of Appeals granted the wife's appeal, and the matter was remanded to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court.
Ms. Gooch reported she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
The Commission believes that Ms. Gooch's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Ms. Gooch to be "Well Qualified" as to physical health, mental stability, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience and judicial temperament. Ms. Gooch is married to Matthew Thomas Gooch. She has three children.
Ms. Gooch reported that she was a member of the following Bar associations and professional associations:
Ms. Gooch provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Ms. Gooch further reported:
With my experience, knowledge and skill, I will make an excellent Family Court judge. I have 19 years of practicing in and around the Family Court and I have practical experience in almost all of the legal areas within the Family Court's jurisdiction. My temperament and demeanor are suitable for being a fair, courteous judge.
The Commission commented on Ms. Gooch's outstanding performance on the Commission's practice and procedure test. They noted her dedicated service as a staff attorney with the Department of Social Services handling child abuse and neglect proceedings, vulnerable adults, and termination of parental rights. The Commission found Ms. Gooch qualified to serve as a Family Court judge.
13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Hodges meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Hodges was born in 1959. He is 54 years old and a resident of Greenville, SC. Mr. Hodges provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1987. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hodges. Mr. Hodges 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. Hodges reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Hodges testified that he has not:
Mr. Hodges 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. Hodges to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Mr. Hodges described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past seven years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date Mr. Hodges reported that he has taught the following law-related course: I participated in the program titled, "What Family Court Judges Want You to Know" held in Greenville on 2/18/11. This seminar involved a panel of eight Family Court judges speaking on a variety of Family Court issues. I moderated the judges' discussions and prepared their materials.
Mr. Hodges reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hodges did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hodges did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hodges has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Hodges 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. Hodges reported that his rating by a legal rating organization, Martindale-Hubbell, is AV. He also reported he was selected as a "Super Lawyer" in the area of Family Law in 2008 and 2009.
Mr. Hodges appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Hodges appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Hodges was admitted to the SC Bar in 1987.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Robertson was elected to the Family Court Bench in 2010. Our partnership was dissolved and I continued my practice under the name Thomas T. Hodges, P.A. I still limit my practice to Family Court matters. Mr. Hodges further reported regarding his experience with the Family Court practice area: DIVORCE: I have handled numerous divorce cases. Some have been complicated by significant property or support issues. Some have been very simple where there are no property or support issues to resolve. I have handled many fault based divorce cases as well as many no-fault cases. I have handled contested and uncontested cases alike. I have handled many separate support cases. I have also litigated and handled cases involving the existence of a common law marriage. ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT: I have prosecuted and defended cases requesting alimony, termination of alimony and modifications to alimony and child support awards. I have represented unwed mothers in actions to establish child support. EQUITABLE DIVISION: I have handled a wide variety of cases where the parties have argued over personal property that had little or no monetary value to cases where one party or the other is a multi-millionaire. Occasionally an expert is needed to value property or a business. I have worked closely with those experts in identifying the property and valuing it. Several recent cases have involved parties with significant non-marital assets that while not included in the marital estate, still impact the percentage of the estate to be awarded to a spouse and impact the support that a spouse is to pay. I have dealt with issues of transmutation of non-marital property. I have drafted numerous pre-marital agreements dealing with the disposition of property in the event of a later divorce or separation. CHILD CUSTODY: I have handled many custody issues whether they were part of a divorce case or independent of a divorce action. I have handled numerous change of custody actions representing both the plaintiff and defendant. I have handled cases wherein one parent has made serious, but unfounded charges of sexual abuse of the child against the other parent. I have successfully represented un-wed fathers in obtaining custody and/or visitation rights. I have represented grandparents in obtaining custody of their grandchildren. ADOPTION: I have had limited exposure to adoptions. There are several attorneys who specialize in adoptions to whom I refer those cases. I have represented individuals who have relinquished their parental rights for others to adopt the child. ABUSE AND NEGLECT: I have been appointed in abuse and neglect cases as an attorney and as a guardian ad litem for both children and adults. However, other than appointed cases, I have not represented any one in an abuse and neglect case.
Mr. Hodges reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Hodges reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Hodges reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Mr. Hodges provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Hodges' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
This case is not reported however earlier Minette Mills cases are reported and are pertinent to understanding the importance of this case. Minette Mills was a textile mill located in Grover, North Carolina, that was accused of unlawfully terminating a man and his wife during a union campaign in 1990. In 1991 the NLRB ruled that that the company had acted unlawfully and ordered the company to reinstate the employees with back pay. Minette Mills, Inc., 305 NLRB 1032 (1991). I was one of two trial lawyers in that case. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the NLRB's order. Minette Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 983 F. 2d 1056 (4th Cir. 1993). The company reinstated the employees but could not agree on the amount of back pay owed to them, so a two day hearing was held on that issue in January 1994. I handled that trial and the subsequent appeal to the full NLRB. Minette Mills, Inc., 316 NLRB 1009 (1995). The case I will remember as being significant followed when the employees were terminated a second time and charges of unlawful discrimination and retaliation were filed again by the NLRB. The significance is that the trial on the second discharges was held before the same judge that heard the back pay issue and the company was under the threat of contempt for non-compliance with the Fourth Circuit order. Despite the stacked deck of the case, the judge ruled that the company had not violated the law and dismissed the complaint. To my knowledge the NLRB did not appeal that decision.
This case involved significant property and support issues. The parties were appreciably apart throughout the case concerning the identity and value of the marital property. Complicating the matter further, the wife became statutorily barred from receiving alimony midway through the case which had the effect of making both parties more steadfast in their demands. Numerous depositions were taken including expert and fact witnesses. The case was settled on the night before trial with the husband providing substantial lump sum alimony despite the statutory bar in order to take advantage of the tax benefits. This arrangement allowed him to retain more marital property which in turn allowed him to feel as if the outcome was fair to both parties.
I represented an unwed father in this case. The child's parents lived in Florida when he was born. Shortly after the child's birth the mother brought the child to SC. Several weeks later the mother died. The maternal grandmother brought an action in SC for custody of the child. The father brought an action in Florida for the return of the child. The case involved the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act as well as SC's de facto parent statute that had just been enacted among other issues related to the custody of the child. Several hearings were held with judges from both states conferring over jurisdiction and factual issues. The case was ultimately resolved without a trial with the father gaining custody of his child and returning him to Florida.
I represented the defendant in this common-law marriage case. The plaintiff sought the establishment of a marriage, a divorce, spousal support and equitable division. The plaintiff was given nominal support at the temporary hearing and the case was bifurcated allowing the issue of the marriage to proceed separately. A one-day trial resulted in the plaintiff winning her argument that a marriage existed. This case was significant to me and my practice as I necessarily had to do extensive research on the issue of common law marriages which has benefited me in later cases. It also reaffirmed the importance of the credibility of witnesses when faced with facts that could be viewed from different perspectives. I represented the defendant/father in this divorce case that turned into a heated custody battle. The temporary order granted the father custody after the mother had moved out of state and refused to allow him to see the children. Later a contempt hearing was held on the mother's claim that the father had exposed the children to his paramour. The father prevailed in the hearing and ultimately was granted primary custody of the children. Mr. Hodges reported that he has not personally handled a civil appeal, but explained further: I have not personally handled a civil appeal. While I was listed as an attorney of record in Stiggers-Smith v. Smith 2009-UP-105, and tried the case at the trial level, I did not handle that appeal by myself. Mr. Hodges reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Mr. Hodges further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
I was a candidate for Family Court, At-Large, Seat 6 that was screened in the Fall 2012. I was found qualified and nominated by the JMSC, but withdrew my name from consideration prior to the election.
The Commission believes that Mr. Hodges' temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizens Committee found Mr. Hodges to be "Well Qualified" for ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Mr. Hodges is married to Erroll Anne Hay Yarbrough Hodges. He has two children.
Mr. Hodges reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. Hodges provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Mr. Hodges further reported:
I have been practicing exclusively in the Family Court for 10 years. Prior to that, I was a labor lawyer for 16 years with one of the nation's preeminent labor law firms. In both practices I worked very closely with individuals who were going through stressful situations. I have worked closely with multimillionaires to bankrupt individuals. As a result I have learned how to relate and connect with people regardless of their economic, social or educational background. I believe that my ability to treat all people with the same level of dignity and respect will be an invaluable asset as a Family Court judge.
The Commission commented that Mr. Hodges had an excellent demeanor which would serve him well on the Family Court bench. They noted that he had an interesting legal background in both labor law and family law. The Commission found Mr. Hodges qualified to serve as a Family Court judge.
13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Nichols-Graham meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Nichols-Graham was born in 1972. She is 41 years old and a resident of Greenville, SC. Ms. Nichols-Graham provided in her application that she has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC since 1998. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Nichols-Graham. Ms. Nichols-Graham 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. Nichols-Graham reported that she has made $86.06 in campaign expenditures: $18.40 for postage; $46.40 for office supplies; and $21.26 for copies.
Ms. Nichols-Graham testified that she has not: Ms. Nichols-Graham testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. (3) Professional and Academic Ability: The Commission found Ms. Nichols-Graham to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Ms. Nichols-Graham described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date
Ms. Nichols-Graham reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
Ms. Nichols-Graham reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Nichols-Graham did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Nichols-Graham did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Nichols-Graham has handled her financial affairs responsibly. The Commission also noted that Ms. Nichols-Graham 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. (5) Reputation:
Ms. Nichols-Graham reported that she is not rated by any legal rating organization.
Ms. Nichols-Graham appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Nichols-Graham appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Nichols-Graham was admitted to the SC Bar in 1998.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
Staff Attorney. Provided general law practice and community education in housing, probate, and family law cases. November 1998 to September 1999;
Practiced law for low income children by focusing primarily on adoptions, children's social security cases, special education advocacy, and school discipline cases. September 1999 until December 31, 2001;
Staff Attorney II. Practices law in cases in Greenville County that includes divorce, custody, school discipline, special education, special needs relative adoptions, bankruptcy, credit card defense, and children social security appeals. Appears in Magistrate's Court, Family Court, the Court of Common Pleas, Court of Appeals, and the US Bankruptcy Court in various cases. January 1, 2002 to present;
Leads the education unit, secures local funding, trains attorneys across the state on how to represent students in the public education system, teaches parents how to advocate for children, and operates the Greenville County United Way's Securing Public School Opportunities Program. Practices law in education cases in Greenville County and has practiced education law in Anderson, Spartanburg, Pickens, Oconee, Orangeburg, Horry, Richland, Charleston, Greenwood, York, and Clarendon counties in cases before hearing officers, School Boards, the Court of Common Pleas, and the SC Court of Appeals. March 2003 to present;
Supervised six attorneys, two paralegals, and three support staff. Assigned cases, supervised legal work, handled personnel issues, and participated on management team while the Managing Attorney was on extended leave. September 24, 2007 through December 31, 2007;
Supervised five full time attorneys, three contract attorneys, one volunteer attorney, three support staff employees, and a satellite office. Reviewed emergency intakes, assigned cases, supervised legal work, handled personnel issues, and provided other managerial duties while the Managing Attorney was on extended leave. August 26, 2009 through November 24, 2009;
Ensures the efficient operation of the Greenville Office and maintains a caseload primarily in Family Court. The Greenville Office serves Greenville, Anderson, Pickens, and Oconee counties. Reviews, accepts and assigns or denies applicants. Reviews all cases for quality and compliance. Supervises the legal work of attorneys, several support staff, and the financial accounts. Addresses human resource issues. Prepares grant reports. Participates in the statewide management team. April 1, 2013, to present; Ensures the efficient operation of the Greenville Office and maintains a caseload primarily in Family Court. The Greenville Office serves Greenville, Anderson, Pickens, and Oconee counties. Reviews, accepts and assigns or denies applicants. Reviews all cases for quality and compliance. Supervises the legal work of attorneys, several support staff, and the financial accounts. Addresses human resource issues. Prepares grant reports. Participates in the statewide management team. July 1, 2013 to present. Ms. Nichols-Graham further reported regarding her experience with the Family Court practice area: I have experience in handling divorces (physical cruelty, one year separation, and adultery defense), although my experience is primarily with physical cruelty divorces because of the legal services case acceptance policy. I have significant experience in handling custody and adoption cases. My custody cases involve disputes involving biological parents and non biological parents but usually when there is an allegation of abuse and DSS is not involved or custody is needed to secure some benefit on behalf of the child. My experience with adoption cases is primarily with relative special needs adoptions. I have experience representing defendants in abuse and neglect cases but lately due to limited resources we refer many of those cases to court appointed attorneys unless we are already representing a party in a divorce or custody case. I do not have significant experience handling juvenile justice cases but I believe the vast amount of work that I do for students in school discipline cases has more than prepared me to learn what I do not know in that area.
Ms. Nichols-Graham reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Nichols-Graham reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Nichols-Graham reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. Nichols-Graham provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Nichols-Graham's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
This case was significant to me because I represented a student that was expelled from school and accused of committing sexual offenses without any evidence. The parent unsuccessfully appealed to the board after simply stating persuasive legal grounds but she needed legal services to appeal to the court system. We prevailed in Circuit Court but the school district appealed the decision to the court of appeals. This case is evidence that things do not always work themselves out and there are times that the indigent need civil legal services to secure basic opportunities.
This case was significant because I successfully defended a change of custody action among relatives for children that were previously abused and neglected. I also represented the third party in the previous contested abuse and neglect case. The court granted my motion an involuntary dismissal at the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case.
This case was significant to me because I was unsuccessful in appealing a visitation contempt case. It is important for people to have access to the legal system but the legal system should not be involved in every family dispute
This case was significant to me because I successfully defended a biological mother with very little means in a custody case against the maternal grandmother had great resources and the guardian ad litem's recommendation. This case was significant to me because I represented a client in a visitation Rule to Show Cause. There was an allegation of a history of abuse in a prior case that prevented my client from being able to represent herself.
The following is Ms. Nichols-Graham's account of the civil appeals she has personally handled: Ms. Nichols-Graham reported she has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Ms. Nichols-Graham further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy: I applied for Family Court Judge, At Large, Seat 4, in Fall 2012 and was found qualified but not nominated by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. (9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Nichols-Graham's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizens Committee found Ms. Nichols-Graham to be "Well Qualified" for ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Ms. Nichols-Graham is married to Hakim Rahman Graham. She has one child.
Ms. Nichols-Graham reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Ms. Nichols-Graham provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Ms. Nichols-Graham further reported: Family and school law have always been natural interests of mine. Family relationships and educational experiences play an important role in everyone's development. My formal education was driven by a curiosity and desire to learn more about those relationships and to help others with those relationships and experiences. I blindly pursued a legal career to help and to serve the public. This does not mean that I am more susceptible to bribery than others. It is evidence to the contrary. Values like sound character, integrity, honesty, fairness, respect, and a dedication to public service are my family's business and they shaped my life experiences well before I began expressing personal opinions. As a child, my family attended Nazarene Baptist Church in Mullins, SC and everyone in my family was actively involved in our church. For me a large part of learning to read and reading comprehension was reading aloud in Sunday School and answering questions. It was important to sound the words out correctly and know what you were talking about when you answered questions or your peers might laugh, at your expense. I quickly learned the difference between good and evil and right and wrong. Of course, growing up in a safe rural community with relatively stable families also helped. A family courtroom was the first courtroom I observed when I was interested in going to law school. Judge Timothy Pogue allowed me to volunteer in his law firm because I wanted to go to law school but I did not know a lawyer. Judge Pogue had the juvenile defender contract and he was the Marion County DSS attorney so I learned a lot about Family Court before I went to law school. I assisted with the administration of justice in Family Court when I volunteered to help complete Order of Protection paperwork while I was a college student at Winthrop. This experience gave me insight into part of the pro se process in Family Court. When I was in law school I spent a lot of time in Family Court working for the Richland County guardian ad litem program. I became familiar with abuse and neglect and termination of parent rights cases as well as the role of the guardian and litem in and outside of court. I observed judges, lawyers, and guardian ad litems in many abuse and neglect and termination of parental rights trials. There were several Family Court judges in Richland County so I got to observe different judges addressing issues in and weighing concerns in many cases. The first day I walked into a courtroom to represent a client as a member of the Bar, I was in a Family Court courtroom in a DSS vulnerable adult case before Judge Robert Jenkins. As a legal services attorney most of my courtroom experience has been overwhelmingly in Family Court. At this point in my practice, many of my significant cases are confidential and closed matters to protect the identity of minor children but I achieved a lot in publicly reported cases. I have also had the privilege of consulting with many legal service attorneys in numerous cases, court appearances, and appellate work.
I believe my personal and professional experiences will continue to serve the public well if I am a successful candidate for Family Court.
The Commission commented that they were impressed by Ms. Nichols-Graham's wide range of experience in Family Court. They noted that she is a dedicated public servant who received outstanding comments from the Bar. The Commission found Ms. Nichols-Graham qualified to serve as a Family Court judge.
13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 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 47 years old and a resident of Taylors, SC. Judge Stokes provided in his application that he has been a resident of SC for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in SC 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 that he has not:
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. Judge Stokes described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Conference/CLE Name Date Judge Stokes reported that he has taught the following law-related course: Upper State Fare, May 17, 2013, Summary Court Judges. Lecture and presentation on Summary Court Mediation.
Judge Stokes reported that he has published the following: (4) Character: The Commission's investigation of Judge Stokes did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. 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 he is not rated by any legal rating organization.
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 SC Bar in 1991.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Judge Stokes further reported regarding his experience with the Family Court practice area: DIVORCE, PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION, AND CHILD CUSTODY I have maintained a practice in Family Court for the entire time I have been an attorney, over 20 years. Most of my cases have involved divorce and property distribution along with child custody. As with most good practitioners, I have settled approximately 90-95% of my cases. I attribute this good settlement record to being able to work well with other attorneys and clients, and being able to explain the law to clients that apply to the client's case ,so that settlement can be realistically pursued for the client and with the client's support and enthusiasm. The law in these areas is reasonably settled and practitioners should be able to predict with reasonable accuracy the range within which a decision by a court will fall. Also, settlements have been facilitated in Greenville County because this county has had mandatory mediation for some time and this has greatly helped both litigants and the courts. Of course, for various reasons not all cases settle, and I have tried many cases before the court to conclusion. ADOPTIONS I have done several adoptions in my practice. I have undertaken private adoptions, step-parent adoptions, and adoptions that involved DSS where foster parents adopt the children that have been placed in their care. ABUSE AND NEGLECT I have handled abuse and neglect cases that have involved DSS and private actions that involved issues of abuse and neglect and termination of parental rights. JUVENILE JUSTICE I have never had an opportunity to handle a juvenile case. However, I have reviewed the procedure in preparing for this process, both as it relates to crimes and status offences. I have litigated several criminal matters, and as a magistrate I have heard thousands of criminal matters so I feel comfortable with the underlying criminal law and believe that I am competent to apply the process in a juvenile case in Family Court.
Judge Stokes reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Judge Stokes reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic during the past five years as follows:
Judge Stokes reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows: Judge Stokes provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Stokes' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
The following is Judge Stokes' account of the civil appeals he has personally handled: Judge Stokes reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Judge Stokes reported that he has held the following judicial office: I was appointed a Greenville County Magistrate Judge in November 1996 and have served continuously since. The criminal jurisdiction is offenses not exceeding a fine of $500 or 30 days imprisonment, or both. The civil jurisdiction is matters where the amount in controversy does not exceed $7,500.00. Unlimited jurisdiction in landlord/tenant matters.
Judge Stokes provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions: Judge Stokes reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge: I have continued my practice of law while a continuing part time judge from 1996 to the present at the places listed above. I have always been my own supervisor. Judge Stokes further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
I have run for Family Court three times from May 2008 to present. I was always found qualified, but not nominated.
The Commission believes that Judge Stokes' temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Judge Stokes to be "Well Qualified" in the evaluative criteria of physical health, and mental stability, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, experience, and judicial temperament. Judge Stokes is married to Rachel Elizabeth Few Stokes. He has three children.
Judge Stokes reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Judge Stokes provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Judge Stokes further reported: My life experience would greatly affect the type of Family Court judge I would make. I was raised on my family's farm with both my mother and father, who both worked full time to provide an education, guidance, and opportunity for travel and learning experiences for me and my brother. While both my brother I were expected to achieve to the best of our abilities in school, scouts, and other extracurricular activities and to contribute to daily farm operations, we never know want or even worried about where our material needs would come from. I now realize that our relative financial comfort was in large part because my mother also worked outside the home so that we could have these privileges that others could not. I now also realize that there were no extraneous calamities, such as long-term illness, job loss, or a severe family situations that many people deal with every day. Thus, from my perspective, my early family life was rather free of struggle and worry. I graduated from Blue Ridge High School in 1984 and went directly to college at Furman University, and from there directly to Law School at the University of SC in Columbia. While I hope my children have a similar, ideal start in life, my early background was not conducive to learning some lessons about the real world. After law school, I immediately entered private practice and did this for about five years. At the age of thirty I was appointed as a magistrate for Greenville County. In hindsight, this was exceedingly young for someone to be made a judge. At that time I had had no children, no personal hardships, no health problems in my family to contend with, and had had little exposure to people who were not like me and had not had the similar experiences and opportunities I had enjoyed. However since that time I have had to live through life situations I would never had anticipated. I have seen others in trying circumstances through my law practice and as a magistrate. I have been blessed and challenged by the births of my three children; two sons and one daughter, two of whom are special needs children. One of my children is severely dyslexic, couple with central auditory and central visual processing deficiencies. She requires special treatment for her impairments and had to have highly-specialized, expensive, private education. My oldest child is considered to be a high-functioning autistic child on the autism spectrum. His official diagnosis is "PPD-NOS," (Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise specified), as he exhibits many traits of Asperger's Disorder, but does not fully meet all the criteria. His condition requires extensive medical and therapy intervention and requires us to learn volumes of information regarding how to nurture him so that he can grow and thrive. The blessing of having my children is that through them I have an opportunity to view life from an angle that is vastly different from "normal" people. They teach me to see and focus on events an situations that would otherwise be overlooked or given little notice. The challenge is that nurturing them properly requires tremendous amounts of patience; their situations require that I must provide more time, advance notice, latitude, and specific detailed instructions for them to perform what would be considered routine task for others. Particularly with my oldest child, I have to continually monitor my own demeanor, as he will absorb the demeanor and attitude of the parent with whom he most closely identifies. With autism such as his, he does not instinctively know how he is to interact with others, both privately and in social situations. The way he learns to deal with other people and society is essentially by memorizing what to do from watching his role models. The professionals inform my wife and I that he will learn most of his social skills from watching me. Thus, I have learned to be mindful of my demeanor and social interaction skills to a heightened degree. I use every opportunity to set a good example for him. I am by nature a mild and friendly person, but his condition has taught me to read the demeanor of others as to how they are reacting to me. This increased awareness has been invaluable to me as a magistrate, an attorney, and as a person in general. Having my children and the cost associated with treating their special needs has enabled me to be aware of how difficult it is to make ends meet with all the financial demands of caring for and supporting a family. I am greatly sympathetic with families and persons who are working hard and having to be mindful of their finances. I am also sympathetic to families like my own who are not only struggling financially, as is my family to help our children, but also emotionally, and have not been as fortunate as I have been in obtaining educational, medical, and emotional support. Many parents with children like mine are unable to provide the services they require regardless of their hard work and loving intentions. I have also seen the difficulty a family can have when one of the wage earners is disabled. My wife was temporarily disabled for about six months; with three children, elderly parents, the expense for her medical care, and the loss of income, I experienced a very rude awakening to the struggles some families experience all the time. Despite the sometimes frustrating hardship, I am in some ways thankful that I am living through these situations. These trials have given me the insight to better understand the people who come through the courtroom or my law office. Before, I intellectually understood the hardships of others, but now I have some understanding and empathy for how they feel, what they fear, and what they hope for. I better like and respect the person I have become from having experienced these trials.
These experiences along with the simple passing of time an getting older have made me a much better person, judge and attorney. The forty-seven year old judge and attorney has much smoother edges than the thirty year old, well-educated novice. I am much more relaxed with my position and am less guarded and less rigid. I have developed more patience with others as time goes on and do not hesitate to take a few extra minutes to let a client or party say a few words that may not be relevant under the rules of evidence or even to the case at hand so that they feel better and I have learned that this is not a case of a judge losing control of the courtroom or displaying weakness, but is a sign of a mature judge who tries to understand people and have a bit of compassion for them.
The Commission commented that Judge Stokes has very ably served as a Magistrate Judge since 1996 as well as served as an attorney in the area of family law in private practice. They noted his dedicated public service in his local community. The Commission found Judge Stokes qualified to serve as a Family Court judge.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission found the following candidates QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED: Chief Justice The Honorable Costa M. Pleicones Chief Justice The Honorable Jean Hoefer Toal Circuit Court At-Large, Seat 11 The Honorable Alison Renee Lee At-Large, Seat 12 The Honorable Thomas A. Russo At-Large, Seat 13 The Honorable Larry B. Hyman, Jr. Family Court 4th Judicial Circuit, Seat 3 The Honorable Michael S. Holt 6th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 The Honorable Coreen B. Khoury 6th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 The Hon. W. Thomas Sprott, Jr. 9th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 The Honorable Jocelyn B. Cate 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 James C. Alexander 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Tarita A. Dunbar 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Katherine H. Tiffany 15th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Melissa Johnson Emery 15th Judicial Circuit, Seat 3 The Honorable Ronald R. Norton 16th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 Thomas H. White IV Administrative Law Court
Chief Administrative Law The Judicial Merit Selection Commission found the following candidates QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED: Family Court 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Wanda L. Adams 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Robert A. Clark 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Kathryn Walsh Gooch 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Thomas T. Hodges 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 Kimaka Nichols-Graham 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5 The Honorable Michael D. Stokes
Respectfully submitted, Received as information.
Rep. BARFIELD, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 4447 (Word version) -- Rep. Taylor: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE INTERCHANGE LOCATED AT EXIT 22 ALONG INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 20 IN AIKEN COUNTY "DEPUTY SHERIFF JASON L. SHEPPARD INTERCHANGE" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS INTERCHANGE THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "DEPUTY SHERIFF JASON L. SHEPPARD INTERCHANGE". Rep. BARFIELD, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 4396 (Word version) -- Rep. Bowen: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME EXIT 19 ALONG INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 85 IN ANDERSON COUNTY "T. ED GARRISON INTERCHANGE", AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS EXIT THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "T. ED GARRISON INTERCHANGE". Rep. BARFIELD, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 4355 (Word version) -- Reps. Clemmons, Mack, Bannister, Whitmire, Henderson and McCoy: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX NOON ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2014, AS THE TIME TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JULY 31, 2014; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, AT-LARGE SEAT 11, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, AT-LARGE SEAT 12, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, AT-LARGE SEAT 13, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM THAT EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2019; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT, NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 5, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 5, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014, AND TO FILL THE SUBSEQUENT FULL TERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2020; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT, FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2016, AND THE SUCCESSOR WILL FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF THAT OFFICE; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO THE FAMILY COURT, FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT, SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2016, AND THE SUCCESSOR WILL FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF THAT OFFICE; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO THE JUDGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM WILL EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014; AND AS THE DATE TO MEET IN JOINT SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FRANCIS MARION UNIVERSITY, AT-LARGE SEAT NINE, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES ON JUNE 30, 2016; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES ON JUNE 30, 2017; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE OLD EXCHANGE BUILDING COMMISSION, AT-LARGE SEATS, WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 2018. Rep. BARFIELD, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 4382 (Word version) -- Rep. Gilliard: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO URGE OUR FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, ALONG WITH CHURCHES AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, TO ACCELERATE THEIR EFFORTS TO ASSIST Rep. BARFIELD, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 4388 (Word version) -- Rep. Thayer: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF NORTH HAMILTON STREET IN THE TOWN OF WILLIAMSTON FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH GREENVILLE DRIVE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH MINOR STREET "DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. MEMORIAL DRIVE", AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. MEMORIAL DRIVE". Rep. BARFIELD, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 4397 (Word version) -- Rep. Bowen: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE INTERSECTION LOCATED AT THE JUNCTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAYS 187 AND 24 IN ANDERSON COUNTY "PORTMAN SHOALS INTERSECTION" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS INTERSECTION THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "PORTMAN SHOALS INTERSECTION".
The following was introduced: H. 4508 (Word version) -- Reps. Simrill, Norman, Pope, Delleney, Felder, King, Long, D. C. Moss and V. S. Moss: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE NORTHWESTERN HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAM OF YORK COUNTY WITH THE TEAM COACHES AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS, AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPEAKER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING RECOGNIZED AND COMMENDED FOR CAPTURING THE 2013 SOUTH CAROLINA CLASS AAAA DIVISION II STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE. Be it resolved by the House of Representatives: That the privilege of the floor of the South Carolina House of Representatives be extended to the Northwestern High School football team of York County with the team coaches and school officials, at a date and time to be determined by the Speaker, for the purpose of being recognized and commended for capturing the 2013 South Carolina Class AAAA Division II State Championship title. The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced: H. 4509 (Word version) -- Reps. Simrill, Norman, Pope, Delleney, Felder, King, Long, D. C. Moss and V. S. Moss: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR THE NORTHWESTERN HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAM, COACHES, AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS FOR AN OUTSTANDING SEASON AND CONGRATULATE THEM FOR WINNING THE 2013 CLASS AAAA DIVISION II STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE. The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4505 (Word version) -- Rep. Bowen: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO JOIN THE SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA JOINT WATER CAUCUS TO ENCOURAGE STATE AGENCIES, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TO IMPLEMENT A WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS OPTIMIZATION OF WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY MANAGEMENT OF THE WATER RESOURCES SHARED BY SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA THROUGHOUT THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN.
The following was introduced:
H. 4506 (Word version) -- Reps. Gagnon, Gambrell and Putnam: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 187 IN ANDERSON COUNTY FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 29 TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 181 "PAUL ROBISON EARLE MEMORIAL HIGHWAY", AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "PAUL ROBISON EARLE MEMORIAL HIGHWAY".
The following was introduced: H. 4507 (Word version) -- Rep. K. R. Crawford: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE FORMER STATE TROOPER CORPORAL JULIUS Z. DUKE II OF FLORENCE COUNTY UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT, TO COMMEND HIM FOR MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE AS A STATE TROOPER, AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES FOR MUCH SUCCESS AND FULFILLMENT IN THE DAYS AHEAD. The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The Senate sent to the House the following: S. 944 (Word version) -- Senators Thurmond, Campsen, Grooms, Campbell, Bennett and Kimpson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR THE PROFOUND IMPACT OF THE LIFE OF MARTHA BROWNING DICUS UPON THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND UPON THE COUNTLESS LIVES TOUCHED BY HER EXUBERANCE AND JOIE DE VIVRE. The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 4503 (Word version) -- Rep. Cobb-Hunter: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 2 TO CHAPTER 31, TITLE 23 SO AS TO REQUIRE A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE ANY SALE, EXCHANGE, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM IN THE STATE AND TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE BACKGROUND CHECKS; TO REQUIRE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS AND TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE BACKGROUND CHECKS; AND TO EXEMPT RECORDS KEPT FROM DISCLOSURE AS A PUBLIC RECORD UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE ARTICLE.
H. 4504 (Word version) -- Rep. Cobb-Hunter: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, TO ENACT THE "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDE PREVENTION ACT" SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE SURRENDER OF FIREARMS OWNED BY A PERSON CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OF A HIGH AND AGGRAVATED NATURE; BY ADDING SECTION 16-25-130 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF FAILURE TO SURRENDER A FIREARM AFTER CONVICTION FOR A CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSE AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY; BY ADDING SECTION 16-25-140 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO KNOWINGLY SELL A FIREARM TO A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSE AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1750, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST PERSONS ENGAGED IN HARASSMENT OR STALKING, SO AS TO INCLUDE CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSES IN THE LIST OF OFFENSES THE MAGISTRATES COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER AN ACTION SEEKING A RESTRAINING ORDER, TO ALLOW THE COURT TO ORDER THE SURRENDER OF FIREARMS IF THE COURT FINDS IMMINENT DANGER EXISTS, AND TO PROVIDE FACTORS FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING IF IMMINENT DANGER EXISTS; TO AMEND SECTION 16-25-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SO AS TO ADD A DEFINITION OF "FIREARM"; TO AMEND SECTION 17-15-40, RELATING TO CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE COURT TO ORDER A PERSON CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT OFFENSE TO SURRENDER ALL FIREARMS AS A CONDITION OF BOND, TO ALLOW THE COURT TO ORDER A PERSON CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSE TO SURRENDER ALL FIREARMS AS A CONDITION OF BOND IF REQUESTED BY OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE VICTIM, AND TO PROVIDE FACTORS FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING IMMINENT DANGER; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-4-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ORDERS OF PROTECTION, SO AS TO ADD THAT IF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION IS ISSUED AND THE COURT FINDS IMMINENT DANGER EXISTS, THE COURT MAY ORDER THE SURRENDER OF FIREARMS AND TO PROVIDE FACTORS FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING IMMINENT DANGER.
H. 4510 (Word version) -- Reps. Ryhal, Hardwick, Goldfinch, Barfield, Hardee, Bingham, Burns, H. A. Crawford, Douglas and G. M. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 21 TO CHAPTER 71, TITLE 38 SO AS TO ENACT THE "NAVIGATOR BACKGROUND CHECK ACT", TO PROVIDE A CITATION, TO PROVIDE NECESSARY DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE CRITERIA FOR REGISTRATION AS A HEALTH CARE INSURANCE NAVIGATOR, TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF A PERSON ACTING AS A HEALTH CARE INSURANCE NAVIGATOR, TO PROVIDE RELATED DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR A VIOLATION.
H. 4511 (Word version) -- Reps. Stringer and Putnam: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7 TO CHAPTER 6, TITLE 12 SO AS TO REPLACE THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX WITH A FLAT TAX RATE EQUAL TO THREE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT ON THE TAXPAYER'S FEDERAL ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TO ALLOW A TAX FORGIVENESS CREDIT BASED ON INCOME AND NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS LISTED ON THE RETURN, INCLUDING A SPOUSE AND DEPENDENTS, TO ALLOW A CREDIT FOR INCOME TAXES PAID IN ANOTHER STATE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A TAXPAYER MUST FILE A RETURN IF THE TAXPAYER HAS ANY ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.
H. 4512 (Word version) -- Reps. J. R. Smith, Clyburn, Hixon, Taylor and Wells: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 4-10-470, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EDUCATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SALES AND USE TAX, SO AS TO ALLOW A COUNTY THAT DOES NOT COLLECT A CERTAIN AMOUNT IN ACCOMMODATIONS TAX TO IMPOSE THE SALES TAX SO LONG AS NO PORTION OF THE COUNTY AREA IS SUBJECT TO MORE THAN TWO PERCENT TOTAL SALES TAX.
H. 4513 (Word version) -- Rep. McEachern: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-2640, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ASSESSED VALUE OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ASSESSED VALUE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A SPECIAL FARM VEHICLE LICENSE IS FIFTY DOLLARS IF THE VEHICLE IS AT LEAST TEN YEARS OLD, INSTEAD OF FIFTEEN YEARS OLD.
H. 4514 (Word version) -- Reps. McEachern, J. E. Smith and Douglas: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-5-120 AND 7-5-180, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS AND PROCEDURES NECESSARY FOR PERSONS TO REGISTER TO VOTE, SO AS TO REVISE REFERENCES; TO AMEND SECTION 7-5-310, RELATING TO VOTER REGISTRATION AGENCIES, SO AS TO REFLECT A NAME CHANGE FOR ONE OF SUCH AGENCIES AND TO DELETE A REFERENCE TO DISABILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-990, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ACCESSIBILITY OF POLLING PLACES, SO AS TO REVISE "BARRIER FREE" TO "ACCESSIBLE" AND TO DEFINE "ACCESSIBLE", TO ALLOW ANY PERSON WITH DISABILITIES TO VOTE IN A COUNTYWIDE ACCESSIBLE POLLING PLACE AND REQUIRE THAT ANY ALTERNATIVE POLLING PLACE MUST BE ACCESSIBLE; TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-1000, RELATING TO PRECINCTS IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE ANY POOLED PRECINCT TO BE ACCESSIBLE; TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-200, RELATING TO THE MAILING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT ABSENTEE BALLOTS MUST BE AVAILABLE IN BRAILLE AND LARGE PRINT FORMAT; TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ABSENTEE VOTING, SO AS TO REPLACE THE REFERENCE TO "PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON" TO "PERSON WITH A DISABILITY", AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE"; TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PERSONS QUALIFIED TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT, SO AS TO REVISE REFERENCES RELATING TO DISABILITIES AND HOSPITALS; TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-330, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE FOR ABSENTEE VOTING, SO AS TO CONFORM THE REFERENCES RELATING TO PERSONS ADMITTED TO HOSPITALS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-15-380 AND 7-15-385, BOTH AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OATH AND PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR VOTING BY ABSENTEE BALLOT, SO AS TO UPDATE REFERENCES RELATING TO DISABILITY.
H. 4515 (Word version) -- Reps. Patrick and Lucas: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION EFFICIENCY ACT"; TO AMEND SECTION 59-3-10, RELATING TO THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SO AS TO DELETE LANGUAGE PROVIDING FOR HIS ELECTION AND TO MAKE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE CABINET TO BE HEADED BY THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION WHO MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE; TO AMEND SECTION 59-3-30, RELATING TO THE GENERAL DUTIES OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT ADMINISTER THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALL POLICES AND PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY LAW OR ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE RATHER THAN THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; TO AMEND CHAPTER 6, TITLE 59, RELATING TO MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BY THE EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, SO AS TO REVISE THE CHAPTER IN ITS ENTIRETY, TO ABOLISH THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TO TRANSFER ITS FUNCTIONS, POWERS, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AUTHORITY, EMPLOYEES, AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS, AND ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO THE EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, TO DELETE OBSOLETE REFERENCES, AND TO MAKE CONFORMING CHANGES, TO DIRECT THE CODE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE CONFORMING CHANGES AND TO REPORT THESE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFORE JULY 1, 2015; TO REPEAL SECTION 59-3-20 RELATING TO FILLING A VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION AND CHAPTER 5, TITLE 59 RELATING TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT TAKE EFFECT UPON APPROVAL BY THE GOVERNOR AND ARE CONTINGENT ON THE RATIFICATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7, ARTICLE IV, AND TO SECTION 2, ARTICLE XI, OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION, MAKING THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE CABINET RATHER THAN AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows: Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowen Bowers Branham G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole H. A. Crawford K. R. Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Douglas Edge Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gagnon Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Hardwick Harrell Hart Hayes Henderson Herbkersman Hiott Hixon Hodges Horne Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson King Knight Loftis Long Lowe Lucas McCoy McEachern M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Merrill Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Munnerlyn Nanney Newton Norman R. L. Ott Owens Parks Patrick Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Rivers Robinson-Simpson Rutherford Ryhal Sabb Sandifer Sellers Simrill Skelton G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stavrinakis Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Vick Wells Whipper White Whitmire Williams Willis Wood
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Thursday, January 16. Robert Riley Douglas "Doug" Brannon H. B. "Chip" Limehouse David Weeks David Mack Joseph Neal Jerry Govan
The SPEAKER granted Rep. KENNEDY a leave of absence for the day due to family medical reasons.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. CLEMMONS a leave of absence for the day due to business reasons.
I have requested leave, to attend a firearms manufacturing tradeshow in Nevada, for the purpose of soliciting corporate relocation. Rep. Alan Clemmons
The SPEAKER granted Rep. ERICKSON a leave of absence for the day.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. NORRELL a leave of absence for the day due to a family commitment.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. MURPHY a leave of absence for the day due to a court appearance.
Rep. SELLERS signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call of the House and was present for the Session on Wednesday, January 15.
Announcement was made that Dr. H. Tim Pearce was the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
Bill Number: H. 4407 (Word version)
Bill Number: H. 4387 (Word version)
Bill Number: H. 4353 (Word version)
Bill Number: H. 4356 (Word version)
Bill Number: H. 3231 (Word version)
Bill Number: H. 4372 (Word version)
Bill Number: H. 3435 (Word version)
The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate: H. 3174 (Word version) -- Reps. Whitmire and V. S. Moss: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-9-12 SO AS TO ALLOW THE GOVERNING BODY OF A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY TO EXEMPT CERTAIN HISTORIC PROPERTIES FROM THE APPLICATION OR ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING CODES UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. H. 4467 (Word version) -- Reps. Daning, Rivers, Crosby, Southard, Jefferson and Merrill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN BERKELEY COUNTY, SO AS TO REDESIGNATE VARIOUS EXISTING PRECINCTS, TO ADD TEN PRECINCTS, AND TO REDESIGNATE THE MAP NUMBER ON WHICH THE NAMES OF THESE PRECINCTS MAY BE FOUND AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD. H. 4475 (Word version) -- Reps. J. R. Smith, Clyburn, Hixon and Taylor: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-40, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN AIKEN COUNTY, SO AS TO REDESIGNATE VARIOUS EXISTING PRECINCTS, TO ADD THREE PRECINCTS, AND TO REDESIGNATE THE MAP NUMBER ON WHICH THE NAMES OF THESE PRECINCTS MAY BE FOUND AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.
The following Bills were read the third time, passed, and having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title of each be changed to that of an Act, and that they be enrolled for ratification: S. 502 (Word version) -- Senator O'Dell: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE STARR-IVA WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT IN ANDERSON COUNTY TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE TO A SPECIFIED AREA OF ABBEVILLE COUNTY, UPON THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF ABBEVILLE COUNTY, TO SOLVE A CRITICAL WATER SERVICE PROBLEM. S. 671 (Word version) -- Senator Massey: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-240, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN EDGEFIELD COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE CERTAIN PRECINCTS AND TO DESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER ON WHICH THE NAMES OF THESE PRECINCTS MAY BE FOUND AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.
The following Bill was taken up: H. 3514 (Word version) -- Reps. Hamilton, Delleney, Taylor, Putnam and Loftis: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 17-13-180 SO AS TO DEFINE NECESSARY TERMS, PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM AND THE DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ACQUIRED THROUGH THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.
The Committee on Judiciary proposed the following Amendment No. 1 to H. 3514 (COUNCIL\MS\3514C001.MS.AHB13), which was adopted:
/( ) Nothing in this section creates any liability for a manufacturer of an unmanned aircraft system, as defined in subsection (A)(13), when an agency, as defined in subsection (A)(1), is found to be in violation by a court of competent jurisdiction, as defined in subsection (A)(3), of the provisions of this section. /
Rep. HAMILTON explained the amendment.
Rep. BOWEN proposed the following Amendment No. 2 to H. 3514 (COUNCIL\SWB\3514C001.SWB.CM13), which was ruled out of order: "Section 56-5-3890. (A) For purposes of this section: (1) 'Electronic communication device' means an electronic device used for the purpose of composing, reading, or sending an electronic message, but does not include a global positioning system or navigation system or a device that is physically or electronically integrated into the motor vehicle. (2) 'Electronic message' means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. 'Electronic message' includes, but is not limited to electronic mail, a text message, an instant message, or a command or request to access an Internet site. (B) A person may not use an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message while operating a motor vehicle on a roadway. (C) This section does not apply to a person operating a motor vehicle while: (1) off the traveled portion of a roadway; (2) using an electronic communication device in hands-free, voice-activated, or voice-operated mode that allows the user to review, prepare and transmit an electronic message without the use of either hand except to activate, deactivate, or initiate a feature or function; (3) summoning medical or other emergency assistance; or (4) using a citizens band radio, commercial two-way radio communication device, in-vehicle security, or amateur or ham radio device. (D) A person who violates this section where no great bodily injury or death resulted from the violation, is guilty of misdemeanor distracted driving and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars, pay a twenty-five dollar Trauma Care Fund surcharge in accordance with Section 56-5-3897, and have two points assessed against his driving record in accordance with Section 56-1-720. The fine is subject to all applicable court costs, assessments, and surcharges. (E) This section preempts local ordinances, regulations, and resolutions adopted by municipalities, counties, and other local government entities regarding persons using hand-held and hands-free wireless electronic communication devices while operating motor vehicles on the public streets and highways of this State.
(F) Nothing in this section is intended to conflict with enforcement of applicable restrictions or requirements imposed on commercial motor vehicle operators pursuant to the federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations."
"Section 56-5-3897. Monies received by the Trauma Care Fund pursuant to Section 56-5-3890 must be deposited with the city or county treasurer, as applicable, for remittance to the State Treasurer. The State Treasurer shall deposit the Trauma Care Fund surcharge in the South Carolina State Trauma Care Fund. The Trauma Care Fund surcharge must not be used by the Department of Health and Environmental Control for the payment of the department's administrative or operating expenses or for any purpose other than providing financial aid to participating trauma care providers and grants related to trauma care in this State. The Trauma Care Fund surcharge is not subject to the provisions of Section 44-61-520(G)." "Section 56-1-720. There is established a point system for the evaluation of the operating record of persons to whom a license to operate motor vehicles has been granted and for the determination of the continuing qualifications of these persons for the privileges granted by the license to operate motor vehicles. The system shall have as its basic element a graduated scale of points assigning relative values to the various violations in accordance with the following schedule: VIOLATION POINTS Reckless driving 6 Passing stopped school bus 6 Hit-and-run, property damages only 6 Driving too fast for conditions, or speeding: (1) No more than 10 m.p.h. above the posted limits 2 (2) More than 10 m.p.h. but less than 25 m.p.h. above the posted limits 4 (3) 25 m.p.h. or above the posted limits 6 Disobedience of any official traffic control device 4 Disobedience to officer directing traffic 4 Failing to yield right of way 4 Driving on wrong side of road 4 Passing unlawfully 4 Turning unlawfully 4 Driving through or within safety zone 4 Failing to give signal or giving improper signal for stopping, turning, or suddenly decreased speed 4 Shifting lanes without safety precaution 2 Improper dangerous parking 2 Following too closely 4 Failing to dim lights 2 Operating with improper lights 2 Operating with improper brakes 4 Operating a vehicle in unsafe condition 2 Driving in improper lane 2 Improper backing 2
Distracted driving 2."
"Section 56-5-2920. Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate either a wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, or while distracted or in an inattentive manner which shall include texting while driving when bodily injury occurs is guilty of reckless driving. The Department of Motor Vehicles, upon receiving satisfactory evidence of the conviction, of the entry of a plea of guilty or the forfeiture of bail of any person charged with a second and subsequent offense for the violation of this section shall forthwith suspend the driver's license of any such person for a period of three months. Only those offenses which occurred within a period of five years including and immediately preceding the date of the last offense shall constitute prior offenses within the meaning of this section. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, entry of a plea of guilty or forfeiture of bail, be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days."/
Rep. G. R. SMITH raised the Point of Order that under Rule 9.3 Amendment No. 2 to H. 3514 was out of order in that it was not germane to the Bill. The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill. The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are: Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowen Branham Brannon R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Clyburn Cole H. A. Crawford K. R. Crawford Crosby Douglas Edge Felder Finlay Forrester Funderburk Gambrell George Gilliard Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Hardwick Harrell Hart Hayes Henderson Herbkersman Hiott Hixon Hodges Horne Hosey Huggins Jefferson Knight Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern M. S. McLeod W. J. McLeod Merrill Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Munnerlyn Nanney Newton Norman R. L. Ott Owens Pitts Pope Putnam Quinn Ridgeway Rivers Rutherford Ryhal Sabb Sandifer Sellers Simrill Skelton G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Vick Weeks Wells Whitmire Williams Willis Wood
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
On motion of Rep. HAMILTON, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 3514 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
The following Bill was taken up: H. 3764 (Word version) -- Reps. Long, K. R. Crawford, Norrell, Knight, Erickson, Barfield, Delleney, Dillard, Douglas, Gagnon, Henderson, Loftis, Newton, Pope, Ridgeway, Spires, Stringer and Wood: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE "NONEMBRYONIC AND NONFETAL CELL THERAPY ACT" BY ADDING ARTICLE 15 TO CHAPTER 43, TITLE 44 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF NONEMBRYONIC AND NONFETAL CELL OR TISSUE BANKS; TO DEFINE NONEMBRYONIC AND NONFETAL CELL FOR PURPOSES OF THE ARTICLE; TO PROHIBIT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES FROM REGULATING NONEMBRYONIC AND NONFETAL CELL OR TISSUE BANKS OR FROM TAKING DISCIPLINARY ACTION OR IMPOSING PENALTIES OR CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY THIS ARTICLE; TO PROHIBIT LICENSING BOARDS FROM ABSOLVING THEMSELVES OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REGULATE LICENSEES OR TO REGULATE PROCEDURES USED TO PERFORM THE ACTIVITIES PERMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE; TO PROHIBIT IMMUNITY FROM PENALTIES OR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO FAIL TO EXERCISE REASONABLE CARE IN PROVIDING SERVICES PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE; AND TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASE, COMPOUNDING, DELIVERY, AND ADMINISTRATION OF NONEMBRYONIC AND NONFETAL CELLS. Rep. DELLENEY moved to adjourn debate on the Bill until Tuesday, January 21, which was agreed to.
The following Bill was taken up: H. 4468 (Word version) -- Reps. Hardwick, Ryhal and Clemmons: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-320, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN HORRY COUNTY, SO AS TO REDESIGNATE VARIOUS EXISTING PRECINCTS, TO ADD TWO PRECINCTS, AND TO REDESIGNATE THE MAP NUMBER ON WHICH THE NAMES OF THESE PRECINCTS MAY BE FOUND AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD. The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are: Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Ballentine Barfield Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowen Bowers Branham Brannon R. L. Brown Burns Chumley Cole H. A. Crawford K. R. Crawford Crosby Douglas Felder Finlay Forrester Gagnon George Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Hardwick Harrell Hayes Henderson Hixon Hodges Hosey Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe Lucas McCoy M. S. McLeod Mitchell D. C. Moss Munnerlyn Nanney Norman Parks Patrick Pitts Pope Putnam Ridgeway Riley Robinson-Simpson Ryhal Sellers J. R. Smith Sottile Southard Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Weeks Wells Williams Willis Wood
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Bill was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
On motion of Rep. HARDWICK, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4468 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
The following Bill was taken up: H. 4497 (Word version) -- Reps. Erickson, Bowers, Herbkersman, Hodges, Newton and Patrick: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-110, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, SO AS TO REDESIGNATE FIVE EXISTING PRECINCTS, ADD NINE PRECINCTS AND DELETE THREE PRECINCTS, AND TO REDESIGNATE THE MAP NUMBER ON WHICH THESE MAY BE FOUND AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD. The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are: Allison Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bernstein Bingham Bowers Branham Brannon G. A. Brown R. L. Brown Burns Chumley H. A. Crawford K. R. Crawford Crosby Dillard Douglas Edge Felder Finlay Forrester Gagnon George Goldfinch Hamilton Hardee Hardwick Harrell Hart Hayes Henderson Herbkersman Hixon Hodges Huggins Loftis Long Lowe Lucas McCoy M. S. McLeod Merrill Mitchell D. C. Moss Munnerlyn Nanney Newton Norman Parks Pitts Pope Putnam Ridgeway Rivers Robinson-Simpson Ryhal Sabb Simrill J. R. Smith Sottile Southard Spires Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Vick Weeks Wells Willis Wood
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Bill was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
On motion of Rep. BOWERS, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4497 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate: H. 3365 (Word version) -- Reps. Govan, Jefferson, Williams, Whipper, R. L. Brown and Gilliard: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 12 TO CHAPTER 63, TITLE 59 SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT EACH PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THE STATE EMPLOY A LICENSED PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST CERTIFIED IN SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO HELP SCHOOL PERSONNEL IDENTIFY STUDENTS IN NEED OF MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING, PROMOTE AWARENESS OF MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND THE AVAILABILITY OF TREATMENT, SCREEN AND IDENTIFY STUDENTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, AND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING AND MAKE REFERRALS FOR APPROPRIATE SOCIAL SERVICES COUNSELING. H. 4259 (Word version) -- Reps. Goldfinch and Clemmons: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-17-760 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA MILITARY SERVICE INTEGRITY AND PRESERVATION ACT", TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO, WITH THE INTENT OF SECURING A TANGIBLE BENEFIT, KNOWINGLY AND FALSELY REPRESENTS HIMSELF TO HAVE SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OR TO HAVE BEEN AWARDED A DECORATION, MEDAL, RIBBON, OR OTHER DEVICE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS OR PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. H. 3147 (Word version) -- Reps. Pope, Tallon, Southard, V. S. Moss and Huggins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-1-160, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS OF "INJURY" AND "PERSONAL INJURY" IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION, SO AS TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EMPLOYEE SEEKING WORKERS' COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURY CAUSED BY STRESS, MENTAL INJURY, OR MENTAL ILLNESS, AND TO ADD MENTAL ILLNESS TO RELATED CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOT COMPENSABLE IF RESULTING FROM AN EVENT INCIDENTAL TO NORMAL RELATIONS BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER.
The motion period was dispensed with on motion of Rep. HIOTT. Rep. SPIRES moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.
At 11:08 a.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. SPIRES, adjourned in memory of former representative and judge, Marion Hardy "Son" Kinon of Dillon, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Friday, October 24, 2014 at 4:29 P.M. |