Journal of the House of Representatives
of the Second Session of the 110th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 11, 1994

Page Finder Index
| Printed Page 1580, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1600, Feb. 10 |
Printed Page 1590 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
At the request of the South Carolina Bar, he attended a week-long seminar entitled Justice System Applications, sponsored by International Business Machine Corporation, October, 1988 (25+ hours); Corporations, Banking and Securities, S. C. Bar, Greenville, S.C., January 14, 1989 (3 hours); Laws of Automobile Insurance, S. C. Bar, Columbia, S.C., October 2, 1989 (2 hours); Computers and the Trial Lawyer, November 2-3, 1989, American Lawyers Association, Dallas Texas (4.5 hours); Trial and Appellate Advocacy and Torts & Ins. Practice, S. C. Bar, January 13, 1989, Greenville, S.C. (3 hours); Law of Workers' Compensation in South Carolina, S. C. Bar, November 30, 1990; Death and Taxes, S. C. Bar, September 10, 1993 (5 hours). In addition to the above, he attended several law-related seminars at the annual meeting of the National Association of Legislatures in Orlando, Florida (1991) and Cincinnati, Ohio (1992).

9. Taught or Lectured:
He has presented numerous law-related lectures. During the years 1963-1969, when he practiced in Columbia, South Carolina, he gave lectures on the subject of federal practice in the Bridge-the-Gap program. During those years, he gave numerous lectures to lawyers and civic organizations on the effect of Gideon v. Wainwright and the legal services to the poor.

He presented a lecture to the Circuit Judges at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the South Carolina Circuit Judges Association, May 30, 1987, Hickory State Park, on Technology and the Courts.

He presented substantially the same lecture at a South Carolina Bar sponsored seminar on September 11, 1987, Charleston, South Carolina at the 1988 Annual Meeting of the South Carolina Bar Association, and a similar lecture at a seminar sponsored by the American Trial Lawyers Association, Dallas, Texas. On numerous occasions, he has presented short lectures at a number of other South Carolina Bar seminars that discussed law related technology.

10. Published Books and Articles: "Constitution Litigation, Construction Law, "South Carolina Trial Lawyers Bulletin, January-February, 1981; "Using Spreadsheets to Compute Valuations and Damages," The Lawyer's PC, January, 1987

Printed Page 1591 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
Associate; McKay, McKay, Black and Walker; April, 1961 - April, 1962
Law Clerk; United States District Judge, J. Robert Martin; April, 1962 - August, 1963
Associate; Rogers & McDonald (later Rogers, McDonald and Ross); August, 1963 - August, 1969
Moved from Columbia to Oconee County in August, 1969, and practiced as a solo practitioner - Walhalla, South Carolina from September 1, 1969 - December 30, 1969. Since 1970, he has practiced with Howard G. Pettit (Pettit & Ross and other names until 1981) and with Julian L. Stoudemire under various firm names, now Ross, Stoudemire, Ballenger & Sprouse, P.A. The firm moved from Walhalla, South Carolina to Seneca, South Carolina (present location) in 1985.
He has had a mixed and wide practice during his career. In the early days with the McKay firm, he represented insurance companies in defending motorists. He also did other defense practice and some corporate work.
During his tenure as law clerk to United States District Judge J. Robert Martin (April, 1962 - August, 1963), Judge Martin tried Monteith v. University of South Carolina and Brown v. South Carolina State Parks, that resulted in the desegregation of the University of South Carolina and the state parks. He assisted in the preparation of the court orders in these historic cases.
Upon returning to the practice with Rogers and McDonald, after his term as a law clerk, at first he was engaged in a Plaintiff's and domestic practice with some work in estates, real estate and corporate work. The character of the work gradually changed so that by the time he left the firm, he again was involved in a defense practice, but with some domestic, corporate and probate work.
Upon moving to Oconee County, the character of the practice was very similar to the practice he left. He was engaged by several insurance companies and for some time performed defense work with, of course, a general practice of a small county, including criminal work in Oconee, Pickens and Anderson Counties, with some work in the Federal Court.
In 1976, he was employed by the Oconee School District to represent it in litigation involving a school building. This litigation (Oconee County School District v. Bowen and Watson, et al.) involved some 10 Defendants and consumed 42 months. During this
Printed Page 1592 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
time, his practice consisted almost exclusively of handling this case. The case was concluded in 1981.
In the summer of 1981, he was engaged to manage an estate of S. Bruce Rochester, deceased, that owned several businesses and owned substantial real estate. For approximately 22 months, his practice was devoted almost exclusively to the management of the business affairs of the estate. While there were a great number of legal problems involved in the work, he engaged others to actually handle all litigation that arose.
Because of the complexities of the work involved during the years 1976-1983, he gave up all criminal and domestic practice and has handled a more limited number of matters since that time. He has been involved in professional malpractice cases, including physicians, architects and trustees. He has been associated by other lawyers to assist in complex cases.
Recently (November, 1992), he was engaged to act as conservator for J. A. Gallimore (now deceased) and for the remaining months of his life managed his business affairs, that included the management of a radio station. Since his death, he has represented the estate.
The character of his practice at the present time is generally corporate, probate and complex litigation.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:AV

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 4 cases
State - numerous, 25 or more
Other - S. C. Public Service Commission, 3 cases
Social Security Appeals - 3 cases

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 95%
Criminal - 1%
Domestic - none

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 5%
Non-jury - 95%

He is often associated in litigation by other counsel because of his expertise in various matters, and it is hard to characterize his

Printed Page 1593 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
involvement. He is chief counsel for his field of expertise, but often serves as associate counsel in the case. The ratio between chief counsel and associate counsel is approximately 50-50.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Oconee School District v. Bowen and Watson, et al. (Non-Jury). This case was significant because of the complexity of the facts, the number of defendants involved and the method by which a very complex problem was solved.
(b) Tamassee DAR School v. E. F. Hutton (Jury, but settled). This case was significant because of the complexity of the facts and the law involved.
(c) Clanton v. Clanton (Non-Jury). He served as associate counsel. This case was significant because of the complexity of the case and the method by which it was concluded.
(d) Tamassee DAR School v. Oconee School District (Federal Case - Non-Jury). This case was significant because of the character of the litigation - discrimination.
(e) Rochester Real Estate v. City of Seneca (Federal - Non-Jury). This case was significant because of the character of the litigation - discrimination.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) City of Westminster v. Blue Ridge Electric, 295 S.C. 93, 366 S.E.2d 611 (S.C. App. 1988)
(b) Stovall Building Supp. Inc. v. Mottet, 305 S.C. 28, 406 S.E.2d 176 (S.C. App. Nov., 1990)
(c) BancOhio v. Martin, 306 S.C. 283, 409 S.E.2d 790 (Ct. App. June, 1991); 426 S.E.2d 773 (Sup. Ct. Feb., 1993)
(d) Seneca River Sunday School v. Washington, unreported Opinion No. 93-UP-083 (S.C. App. March 22, 1993)
(e) Fort Hill Gas Co. v. City of Easley, et al., Opinion No. 23789, February 1, 1993

22. Public Office:
South Carolina House of Representatives (1970-1972), elected
South Carolina House of Representatives (1990-1992), elected

Printed Page 1594 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
23. Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
On three occasions he has served as sole arbiter or as a member of an arbitration panel. On two of the three, the litigation involved construction. In each case, he was selected by the parties and paid by the parties pursuant to either agreements or contracts. None of this work was within the past five years.

24. Unsuccessful Candidate:
He was defeated for reelection for the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1972 and in 1992. He ran unsuccessfully for Oconee County Council in 1974.

25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
He is a licensed real estate broker and has developed three real estate subdivisions. As a broker, however, he does not solicit listings of property or have dealings in property of others. He has, from time to time, developed, bought and sold property since 1970.

He is a majority stockholder in Professional Properties, Inc., a South Carolina corporation that developed a small lake-front subdivision and owns property. The only other shareholder is Julian L. Stoudemire, his law partner. Professional Properties, Inc. also writes title insurance policies. He is the president and a director of that corporation.

26. Officer/director or management of business enterprise:
He is a majority shareholder in Professional Properties, Inc., a South Carolina corporation that developed a small lake-front subdivision and owns property. The only other shareholder is Julian L. Stoudemire, his law partner. Professional Properties, Inc. also writes title insurance policies. He is the President and a Director of that corporation.

28. Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):

As noted above, he owns the majority interest in Professional Properties, Inc. The other shareholder is his law partner, Julian L. Stoudemire.

Printed Page 1595 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
He owns 1/2 interest in the law building that houses Ross, Stoudemire, Ballenger and Sprouse and Professional Properties, Inc. The other interest is owned by Julian L. Stoudemire, his law partner. He would dispose of his interest in the building.

He owns 1/2 interest in a law building occupied by Howard G. Pettit, Cary Doyle and the Guardian ad Litem program in Walhalla, South Carolina. The other 1/2 interest is owned by Howard G. Pettit, attorney. He would dispose of his interest.

He would cease any activity involving the writing of title insurance or any other business activity with any lawyer who could or might be involved in litigation before him.

32. Sued: In the early 1960's (1965?) he was sued by a child hit by a vehicle driven by his former wife. He was not in the car at the time. The case was of doubtful liability but was settled by his insurance company.

He managed the S. Bruce Rochester estate for approximately 22 months. He did not handle any legal work for the estate. Legal work for the estate was handled by other lawyers in the area, including the lawyers in his firm. The filing of the tax return for the estate was assigned to a member of his firm, Mr. Timothy Merrell, who was the associate in the firm (Ross, Stoudemire, and Merrell) charged with all probate and tax work. He was named as a Defendant in an action that alleged that the estate tax return was incorrect resulting in losses to the estate. He did assign the work to Mr. Merrell, but he did not take any part in the filing of the estate tax return and did not possess sufficient expertise to determine the correctness of the return. The case was settled.

36. Lobbyist or Lobbyist Principal:
For a period of time (1985-1990) he was registered as a lobbyist for the South Carolina Bar Association. On a few occasions, he made presentations or contacts regarding pending legislation on behalf of the South Carolina Bar. He was not paid for this work and in general the activity related to such items as rules of court and other matters that affected the bar and public.

Printed Page 1596 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
On one occasion several years ago (1982?), he appeared before a legislative committee on behalf of the Tamassee DAR School at a public hearing regarding pending legislation that related to children. He was paid for this appearance.

On another occasion in the 1980's, he appeared before a legislative committee on behalf of the S. C. Trial Lawyers Association regarding legislation that related to the statute of limitations of contractors and architects. He was not paid for this appearance.

45. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association, member of Board of Directors, 1983-1986; member, South Carolina Bar Foundation, Board of Directors, 1981-1985 (President, 1984-1985) and Participating Fellow; member, Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, 1974-1977 (Chairman, 1976-1977); American Bar Association; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association

46. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member of Seneca Chamber of Commerce; Member of Seneca Sertoma Club; Member Episcopal Church of the Ascension of Seneca, South Carolina

48. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) W. M. Steele, Vice President
Community First Bank
P. O. Box 459, Seneca, SC 29679-0459
882-2575
(b) C. Thomas Cofield, III, Esquire
P. O. Box 448, Anderson, SC 29622
226-5678
(c) R. F. Nalley
702 Ploma Drive, Seneca, SC 29678
882-3143
(d) Henry E. "Jack" Jennings
409 Dougberry Street, Seneca, SC 29678
882-4558
(e) Julian L. Stoudemire, Esquire
P. O. Box 99, Seneca, SC 29679-0099
882-1480

Printed Page 1597 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports, there are no formal complaints or charges of any kind have been filed against you. The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies: Oconee County Sheriff's Department are negative; Seneca City Police Department are negative; SLED and FBI records are negative. The Judgment Rolls of Oconee County are negative. The Federal Court records are negative.

We do have one complaint that's been received and one witness I understand who is present to testify and who will testify after you and you will be given a chance to respond to that.

We -- at this time, as I noted with Senator Macaulay, for new candidates such as yourself, we're giving you the opportunity to make a very brief, five minutes or less, opening statement, if you care to.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSS: I waive opening statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: We very much appreciate that waiver. I'll turn you over at this time to Mr. Elliott for questioning.
MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. ROSS - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. Your Personal Data Questionnaire indicates a more limited experience in the area of criminal law and really in jury trials as well. I think it was one percent of your practice over the last five years was in criminal law and then five percent during the same period was jury work. Could you give the Committee a little better feel for what those percentages represent in terms of numbers of cases?
A. Well, it would be almost no criminal work because the world is such that no one person can do everything. And there is several people in my firm and there is no way that all of us can do -- go do everything, so I -- other people in the firm do criminal work.

I from time to time am in on conferences and examination of witnesses and those kinds of things, but in the last year or two, I've only been involved in one criminal trial and I didn't stay for the whole trial. In jury trials, that's some degree true, although I do jury work, you know, but what I do is I do everything I can to try to settle cases, so I don't have a jury trial.

A jury trial is a last resort for us for several reasons. One is the cost of litigation has become so expensive that you just absolutely eat up everything in the cost of litigation. I had a case I was supposed to try for Judge Anderson on Monday after Christmas and I worked all that weekend

Printed Page 1598 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
and finally got it settled on Sunday before it was to go to trial and that's the pattern that we've been in.

But I maintain that if Benjamin Perry came back, who was born in Oconee County in eighteen five and became the sixth lawyer in Greenville and was a famous lawyer of the day in the upstate, first, you know, he was a provisional governor of South Carolina after the Civil War, reestablished the government authority. I maintain if he came back, that he could go do trial work. He'd have to go get himself reeducated in the current changes, but particularly and truly in criminal law. You know, you would have to reeducate yourself with the latest developments and go to seminars and those kind of things, but the basic format of a jury trial and criminal trial hasn't changed and it's the same now as it's always been.

I mean, we've changed the rules and we've changed the -- we've got the comparative negligence and these kind of things, but the basic structure of it is -- it hasn't changed. It's just like I grew up with my father wiring houses. The fact I hadn't wired a house lately don't mean I can't, so that's -- I mean that's -- I don't believe there is any kind of detriment.
Q. How would you bring yourself up to speed on those areas where you do have limited experience?
A. Well, I wouldn't say I have limited experience at all. I have limited recent experiences. I mean -- well, one thing, too, is, of course, we have in the office -- in our office now all the opinions on computer from '69 and you know that's all coming out in disk, so that you can go back indefinitely, so that if you have a problem, you go to the computer and you punch up that problem as opposed to trying to keep yourself versed in everything that came down which is now impossible. No one can keep up with all these answers.

So I would, of course, bring myself up in the area of criminal law in terms of going to seminars and reading all the advance sheets and those kind of things as necessary. But I don't feel like that there is -- that my -- the fact that I hadn't tried a jury case in criminal law recently is any kind of detriment for the reason that I mentioned because -- or anybody else that is doing the kind of trial work and criminal cases I've done. It's just a matter of going back and doing it.
Q. Your Personal Data Questionnaire indicates that your practice largely centers around complex cases.
A. I've done a lot of complex cases, that's true.
Q. What do you mean by complex cases? Could you give us some examples?

Printed Page 1599 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. Well, the Walhalla Middle School case which is some years ago which involved numerous defendant -- ten different defendants. You know, I think I -- there was a day we eventually worked out a way to settle it. We had 26 big notebooks with all the information stored in it.

I've been involved in complex securities cases in a variety of cases that are more complex. I've been associated and am associated by other lawyers to assist them with cases. Recently, I was associated with a lawyer in Anderson to assist him with a case that was tried in Columbia. I was recently -- last year assisted another lawyer in Seneca to help him with a case that involved a statutory construction which was tried and went on to appeal and that not -- it doesn't happen every day, but from time to time I am associated by other lawyers to assist in things that one reason or another they don't want to do, either it involves complex calculation, complex research, complex brief writing, those kind of things that I'm willing to sit down and do and have done, know how to do.
Q. Your Personal Data Questionnaire also seems to indicate, and correct me if I'm wrong, that because it's -- you handled complex cases that you tend to focus on those and maybe handle a fewer number of cases?
A. Fewer number of cases. That's true. That's true. Let me just say this about that. You know, everything is more complex than it used to be. I practiced law in Columbia for six years before I went back to -- a total of seven before I went back to Oconee County where I'm from. You know, it was a long time before I had a file that was larger than an expanded file. A long time. I don't have a case that's not in a bank box. You know, I don't think I have a case that's not in a bank box.

Some of the reason for that is because of discovery and computers and various things were more complex and you're able to handle a fewer number of things really if they are complex and other people handle other things that I
-- they assist me on things that -- the appellate work and things that are more complex.
Q. As a circuit judge, obviously, you'd be required to handle a large number of cases, in the hundreds, will that be a problem for you?
A. It wouldn't be a problem for me. Now keep in mind, I practiced law in Columbia for seven years and went back to Oconee County and practiced for 25 years. I've done everything that you can think about. I've tried breaches of peace cases in Winnsboro and I've tried assault cases in Eastover and I've tried every kind of case. I've gone to inquests in Gaston.

When I practiced in Columbia, I started doing defense work, then I was a law clerk for a federal judge, came back, practiced with Gene Rogers

| Printed Page 1580, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1600, Feb. 10 |
Page Finder Index