| Printed Page 1550, Feb. 9 | Printed Page 1570, Feb. 10 |

I talked with some people who I felt would tell me what they really thought rather than what I might want to hear and the consensus was unanimous that I would do it. And so I gave some weight to that inquiry that I made.

As to the other part of your question, I would have to say that I know that some things that I have on my mind cannot be accomplished in this short period of time, but I know just as well as that there are some things that I -- I'm real concerned about because I'm really interested in and were my term longer than it is, I would have more follow-up capability. As it is, I would like to let the rest of my Court know about two or three things that I hope will be pursued. They are not really exciting type things, but they are things that in house go to making I think the system better and in the end, the public benefits.

One of the things that is plaguing the court system is case backlog and that's continuing to this day and anything that we can do to make the movement of cases more efficient is what we ought to do. I happen to be chairman of what we call the Ad Hoc Rules Committee that was the one some ten years ago that drew up and recommended to the Legislature and

We've continued that committee at the request of Ex-chief Justice Littlejohn, to sort of be a screening mechanism when people want to make changes in the Rules, so we've stayed in place and one of the things that we're doing this year and next week will be presented to Chairman Hodges of the House Judiciary Committee and Chairman Williams of the Senate as required by the Constitution is a very significant change in one of our Rules. Now this is not an exciting activity, but it's very important.

It's a rule known as Rule 40(C)3 and we have recommended basic changes in that rule which we think is helpful to the Bar and to the Bench and to the movement of cases. I'm very interested in it and I can have some follow-up on that even in my short time. I'm very interested in that.

Then there is another undertaking that we are -- have gotten into which is a draft of a recommended rule of evidence. We lawyers know the difference between the Civil Procedure Rules and the evidence rules. We just -- until we got the Civil Rules -- the Rules of Civil Procedure into a packaged book, we dealt with hundreds of statutory provisions and all. That's been accomplished and the lawyers and the judges now can go right to that book. We want to recommend to the Supreme Court and then ultimately to the General Assembly, a set of Rules of Evidence as to what is admissible in court and what is not admissible.

We have some archaic Rules of Evidence that impede the trial of cases and in some cases really prevent as much disclosure as there ought to be. On the other hand -- and so the guide that we are going by -- and we're in that undertaking now, and the guide that we're going by is the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I mean the Federal Rules of Evidence. That doesn't mean that we are adopting the Federal Rules of Evidence.

We start with that as the guide and we will use their numbering system. It makes it easier for lawyers just -- for instance in the Civil Rules, they can go to the same number in the Federal and in the State rules now. Senator McConnell knows a good bit about that because I had to deal with him when we presented those rules. Had to answer some questions.

But we want to do that and we're not adopting the Federal Rules of Evidence, but we use that as a guide. We have some situations in South Carolina that just don't lend themselves to doing the Federal, but we will essentially be following the Federal Rules of Evidence. We hope to have that done.

Justice Toal is the head of that and she believes that we can have it done by the time of my retirement, that we would be in a position to have

Another matter that I am concerned about is the extent, and I emphasize now the word extent, to which some attorney advertising is going. The United States Supreme Court -- and that's final. The United States Supreme Court has decreed that advertising can be practiced by members of the Bar. I do not read that decision, however, to go nearly as far as some of the advertising that I've seen, Walt Disney type quips and that sort of thing.

I don't want to say too much more about that, but our Court is actually looking into and other states have now acknowledged that the Supreme Court said you can do it, but now has it gone too far. And Iowa, particularly, and Florida are right now in the throes of looking into that and I want to look into that. I think that when advertising goes beyond a cut out point, then I think it's highly counterproductive to the Bar and to the stirring up of unnecessary litigation, et cetera, so I'm very interested in that.

I'm also interested in having a chance maybe possibly to sit down with the leadership -- the appropriate leadership in this area to say just exactly why we may need funding that the present Chief Justice, say, is requesting. I've been through all the Chairs. I don't mean that in any immodest way. I've practiced law for 29 years and then I was a circuit judge for eight and now I've been this for nine and I have been through Chairs and been able to see the viewpoint of Bench and Bar and ultimately the public. And I would like to have the -- my two cents worth as to some problems that we've really got that are borne of my experience. So those are some of the things that I would take my short time and work very hard at.
Q. Thank you. One other question, being a Justice of the Court is a very time consuming and difficult job and you're noted for being very deliberate and thorough and giving great effort to achieve the correct result in a decision. How do you balance all that and the time pressures with the additional administrative duties you or any other chief justice face?
A. Well, I would -- I'm sure the Lord delivered me with some deficits, but one of the pluses I got was a strong body and a workhorse attitude in my -- this is subjective. I'm talking about myself now.

There is sitting in this audience today, I see a person who is formerly on the South Carolina State Development Board and he was a vital cog in the local development -- industrial development and I was a country lawyer in Darlington, South Carolina and got involved as the Chairman

The chief justice, if he's -- if he seeks this position, he knows ahead of time that he has added responsibilities and you'll see the Chief Justice staying at his desk and in his office after hours after the others have gone home. And you will see Mr. Rosen from Court Administration and Propes and those in his office and this happens to me in my office and you just take it, and I don't mean to be misunderstood in saying this, but the honor of being Chief Justice is a pretty good impetus to make you work hard for it.
Q. Thank you. I don't have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr. Elliott. Members of the Committee, any questions for Justice Chandler? Hearing none, thank you, Justice Chandler. We do have another witness. If you would stay with us, we'll ask you to return --
A. All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: -- if you wish to and --
A. I will stay.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
A. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Alexander Paul, would you come forward, please, sir.
MR. PAUL: Where do you want me?
THE CHAIRMAN: To this seat right -- that Justice Chandler was in. Thank you very much. Mr. Paul, please raise your right hand.
ALEXANDER PAUL, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paul, let me tell you a little bit about the process that we'll use. We will -- Mr. Elliott will ask you some questions. We do have your complaint on record and all the Committee members have that and he will ask you some questions about the allegation you raised in your complaint.

As a matter of course, we leave the record open, so that if there are things that we hear that we want to further investigate, we have the ability to go back and do that at a later time, so Mr. Elliott will ask you some questions right now. Try if you can to condense your summary if you want to get into a summary of events after Mr. Elliott finishes his questioning, try if you can to condense it into a reasonable time frame because we do have other complaints we need to hear and we do have the

Then around November 12th, 1990, Woodrow Lewis sitting as a Special Master issued an order in your case in which he ruled for the plaintiffs,

Mr. Cribb represented by John Milling who came to my law office and was there a year and a half before, 18 years ago, I was elected a Circuit judge. For whatever it's worth, Mr. Milling was never a partner. He was simply a paid attorney there. He later after I left became a partner with Mr. Greer, but the Mr. Milling that he's talking about is a young graduate of the law school, stayed there. I was still in the firm for about a year and a half while he was there.

I also was County attorney until I was elected to the General Assembly in 1972. That was 22 years ago. There was no impediment to my sitting on the entire matter from the beginning, but out of an abundance of caution and concern where Darlington County has been a defendant, I've gone the extra mile and just recused myself because I was County attorney for 10 years. But under all the authorities that I know about and all the writers on the subject of what you should do and how long you should be out, I would certainly have had no impediment to hearing the case even with Darlington County being involved. But for the reason that I just said, I recused myself.

When the matter came up on rehearing, Mr. Paul made two motions. He made a motion to expedite it and in our Court move it up quicker for hearing and to grant a rehearing. Judge Lewis had ruled and Judge Cottingham had affirmed the ruling. The Court decided to expedite it and

| Printed Page 1550, Feb. 9 | Printed Page 1570, Feb. 10 |