| Printed Page 1740, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1760, Feb. 10 |

1. Nora B. Lewis
Home Address: Business Address:
198 Lewis Drive 311 West Main Street
Jonesville, SC 29353 P. O. Box 236
Union, SC 29379

2. She was born in Columbia, South Carolina on August 5, 1935. She is presently 58 years old.

4. She was previously divorced in March of 1977; William S. Bailes, Sr. (moving party); Fairfax County of Domestic Relations, Fairfax, Virginia; one year's continuous separation. She was married to Harold Lamar Lewis on May 7, 1977. She has three children:William J. Bailes, Jr., age 34 (Environmental Technician, Union

5. Military Service: N/A

6. She attended Winthrop College, 1953-1956 and Summer of 1958, B.A. in 1959; and William & Mary-Marshall Wythe School of Law, 1972-1975, J.D. in 1975. Between 1959 and 1972, she took various math and education courses at Illinois Institute of Technology, University of Florida and University of Virginia primarily for the purpose of maintaining teacher's certificate.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Average of 12-15 hours of approved courses covering a variety of topics, family law, criminal law and ethics

9. Taught or Lectured: Taught Business Law at USC-Union, 1983

10. Published Books and Articles: Layman's Guide to Virginia Law - Editor, 1976. Also author of Chapter 4, Real Estate Transfers, in same

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1976-1977 General practice as Associate with Neely, Otter, Belk and Beerman in Anderson, South Carolina. Specialized in tax law, general practice
1977-1980 Solo Practice in Union, South Carolina. General practice.
1980-1988 Public Defender (part-time) and general practice.
1988-present General solo practice - no bankruptcy.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:To her knowledge, she is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell, although she is listed. She has never subscribed to Martindale-Hubbell.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 0
State - Average of 3 per week
Other - Social Security Disability Hearings, 10 to 12 per year

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 10%
Non-jury - 90%

Sole Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Wortman v. City of Spartanburg (425 S.E.2d 18). This case was significant in that it arose out of the arrest of Wortman for possession of out-of-state lottery tickets. It raised a number of questions related to immunity of the city and the legality of possession of out-of-state lottery tickets. The matter of these lottery tickets has been the subject of much controversy in the past few years.
(b) Plante v. State (92-CP-44-191). This post-conviction relief action resulted from a guilty plea entered by Plante during the time that the case was on appeal to the Supreme Court. Plante contended that the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to take the plea. PCR Judge agreed. State appealed.
(c) State v. Curtis L. Harris (unreported). As Public Defender, she was lead Counsel for the Defendant in this capital murder case. Although Harris was convicted, they were successful in obtaining a life sentence which is, in and of itself, of utmost significance.
(d) State v. James Wilbanks (unreported). This capital murder case was one of the most publicized and gruesome rape-murder cases ever heard in Union County. Wilbanks was convicted but given a life sentence. As co-counsel for Wilbanks, she thinks it is significant that his life was spared.
(e) Woodsby v. Kelly, 93-DR-44-249. Child custody case wherein cases were brought simultaneously in Ohio and South Carolina. Abuse was alleged, making the case more complicated, as the children are in Ohio and the alleged abusive father is in South Carolina. So far as she has been

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Marvin Gary Wortman v. City of Spartanburg; Appeal from Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas; December 7, 1992. ___ S.C. ___, 425 S.E.2d 18.
(b) Jeffrey Scott Plante v. State of South Carolina, Writ of Certiorari from Post Conviction Relief filed in Union County, heard in York County Court of Common Pleas by the Honorable John C. Hayes, III, appealed by State to Supreme Court. Respondent's Reply filed September 22, 1993. Not yet decided.
As a point of information, she rarely does appeals because the clients that she represents are usually not able to afford appeals.

22. Public Office: Public Defender for Union County; September, 1980 - January, 1988; appointed

23. Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
ABC Hearing Officer

24. Unsuccessful Candidate:
1988 - Ran for Solicitor of 16th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina

25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
1959-1960 Taught High School Math at Boiling Springs High School - Spartanburg County, South Carolina
1962-1963 Taught High School Math in Shenandoah County, Virginia
1963-1964 Taught High School Math in Shenandoah County, Virginia
1965-1966 Taught Junior High School Math in Pensacola, Florida
1969-1972 Taught Junior High School Math in Norfolk, Virginia

26. Officer or Director: She has run her own solo practice of law since 1977. She is a partner in a farming operation owned by her husband and herself. They raise sheep.

46. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Civitan Club, Board of Directors; Union Services, Board of Directors; Union Services Parent/Relative Support Group, President 1992 to date; Mt. Tabor Presbyterian Church, Elder and Clerk of Sessions, 1991 to date

47. Reared in the home of college graduate parents who were active in community affairs, she first married a career naval aviator and, in order to assist in his career and meet the requirements of a naval officer's wife, learned protocol and social niceties which has stood her in good stead. Teaching high school math both before her children were born and after they reached school age, taught her patience, the value of consistency and the importance of maintaining a sense of humor. The fact that she successfully completed law school at William and Mary when her children were 8, 14 and 16 years of age (the youngest one being developmentally delayed), was the first female president of the Student Bar Association, passed both the Virginia and South Carolina bar exams the same year that she graduated from law school and has had a successful practice of law as the only female lawyer in a small southern town, should indicate her organizational abilities as well as her ability to overcome obstacles, her determination and her ability to get along with people. Her major fault is that she takes on cases because of the issues or the justice of the cause rather than whether they are financially rewarding. Her second marriage is to a farmer, and she has numerous duties and responsibilities on the farm which she handles without letting them interfere with her law practice. Since July 1, 1993, acting as a Hearing Officer in the ABC cases has convinced her that she would be a good Administrative Law Judge and would enjoy it.

48. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) O. Dennis Campbell, Vice President
Arthur State Bank
P. O. Drawer 769, Union, SC 29379
427-1213

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that there are no formal complaints that have been filed against you. The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, being the Union County Sheriff's Office, the Union City Police Department, SLED and FBI records, are all negative. Judgement Rolls of Union County are negative. Federal Court records are negative. No complaints or statements were received. No witnesses that have asked to be present to testify against you.

At this time, I give you the chance that we've given the other candidates to make a brief opening statement followed by questioning by Mr. Elliott.
MS. LEWIS: In the interest of brevity, I don't think I need to make an opening statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Elliott.
MS. LEWIS - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Let's start off on this just a minute about your administrative law experience. I notice that you have -- you are hearing ABC cases in the interim before the ALJ Division is established and you went over that a little bit in your opening statement. How many cases are we talking about? How extensive is that experience?
A. I was trying to remember because I didn't count them up, but I started -- my first cases were scheduled on July 1, the day that the change took place. And I would say around a dozen.

They did not call me -- once -- I don't know whether it was coincidental or what, but I was not -- typically, they would call me and say can you do a hearing on such and such a date and once I announced that I was going

You know how you go into a job, if you feel like you do it well, you're comfortable with it and I was comfortable with it after the first hearing or two. I was very fortunate in that Mr. Harrison who used to be an ABC commissioner was the attorney on one -- I think the second and third hearings that I had or something like that and he was so helpful.

In doing these hearings, we not only had to preside, but we had to run a tape machine. We had to be court reporter. Everything. And I was -- he really was very helpful to me and when -- after I got through with the hearing, we only had ten days to get our orders in also which was some time pressure if you've got anything else to do which I did, and he invited me to call me him if I had any questions about anything that went on and I called him.

When I had made my decision, I called him and asked him if it would be out of order for -- to ask him to prepare me a proposed order and I more wanted to see what the orders should look like. He had been a commissioner and had done them before and then I also got sample orders from the ladies in the ABC office. They sent me some samples and I didn't use his order, but I used it as a sample to go by.

And from then -- once -- and then we had a training session. I think it was in late July that we had a training session and from then on, it was all right. We had August and September, as I say, I was doing hearings and I'd say there were a dozen of them all together or maybe more.
Q. And then just briefly, the Social Security cases and Residential Homebuilders and the other administrative law experience you mentioned, about how many cases would that have been?
A. Oh, goodness, I go before the -- I have gone before the Social Security ALJ, I'd say on an average of probably once a month. You know, sometimes there would be two or three one month and then one for a stretch and they've been -- I've been to Richmond for one. I've been to Charlotte for several and to Greenville, but most of mine are in Greenville.
Q. Going back to what you mentioned a minute ago, the ten-day requirement about the rules of the ABC cases, have you been able to meet that ten-day requirement?
A. Yes, sir. But it's -- you know, it's been a push.

As matter of fact, the law enforcement officer had done such a wonderful job of preparing for the case and I asked him if he would send me copies of -- I think he cited some cases and I asked him to send me copies of those.
Q. Well, let's talk --
A. Mr. Harrison knew that, too. I mean --
Q. I take it from what you're saying your policy is -- what is your policy about ex parte communications?
A. Well, there wouldn't be any ex parte communications except that type of thing where you would talk to both sides, give both sides the ample -- or the same opportunity to submit briefs, but no discussion of the case.

But it's been over the years now in civil court, family court, any kind of court, when a judge has withheld his decision, they have, you know, called the office later on. If they don't give a decision right then, and at these ABC hearings, we didn't, or I didn't ever give my hearing -- my decisions right that minute, the judges would call and often they'd announce it from the bench.

They would call the prevailing attorney, whoever -- whose ever side won and say prepare me an order and outlined what they wanted in the order and then sometimes they'd say, "Submit it to the other side before you send it to me," but quite frequently it just went straight to the judge and if it met with his approval, he would sign it and send it on.
Q. I take it from what you said, that would not be your practice?
A. No. Huh-uh.
Q. I got the impression from reading your Personal Data Questionnaire that you didn't know anything about ABC cases before you became a hearing officer; is that correct?

As far as the substantive law is concerned, it's my habit this -- when you have a case coming before you on these ABC cases, when I had one coming before me that was a particular kind of violation, they would outline the case a little bit. I'd know a little bit about what it was about and then I looked it up -- you know, study up on it before that hearing on the law.
Q. All right.
A. And I think another thing as far as getting ready on all of this, I think a resource -- what maybe is a possible resource for helping us in organizing it is the National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg, Virginia. It's my understanding that that's what they are there for is to help states in any -- you know, at any court level that they need help. And they should have -- I would think they should have excellent ideas.

They would have all the -- rather than having to go state to state to find out what models to go by, they should have it all right there.
Q. All right. In a contested case hearing when one of the parties is not represented by an attorney, and I assume you have had that situation in ABC cases frequently, how much leeway do you allow the unrepresented party in leading witnesses and presenting hearsay?
A. That's a difficult question to answer. I think you allow them more than you -- certainly more than you would allow, you know, an attorney who knows better, but you want to give -- if you use the same standard

And, for instance, if they want to submit some piece of evidence that is clearly hearsay, what's the harm in letting him submit it as long as the other attorney doesn't strenuously object to it and, you know, as a judge that this is hearsay and you give it the value -- in making your decision, you give it the value.
Q. Well, doesn't that in some sense prejudice the person whose represented by an attorney?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. What managerial experience do you have?
A. My primary managerial experience is managing my -- well, my family life and my business life and doing it all and doing it well, if you see what I mean.

When my children were small, I had three small children. My husband was a naval aviator. He was overseas one year or so. He was in Vietnam and I had the entire responsibility of the children, all the household business and everything as well as teaching school. And I did it. And I always managed to get -- you know, get it done.

When I went into the law practice -- well, I went to law school and ran my household and my law career and was president of the Student Bar Association my third year. I was the first woman they ever had as a Student Bar president at William and Mary. And they -- you just have to be extremely -- to get all that done, you have to be extremely organized and I think that's the key to good management is to be organized.
Q. As a chief judge, have you given any -- you mention in your Personal Data Questionnaire that I think you call yourself a cause attorney or someone who represents special causes or has a special feeling for certain issues and questions. Have you given any thought to what kind of cases you're going to give priority to as the Chief Judge of the ALJ Division? I mean are you going to be more interested in professional and occupational licensing, ABC licensings, certificates of needs? Have you given any thought to that kind of process?
A. I think if you're talking about which cases come first as far as in order of -- in sequence, I can foresee -- I took the training as a Baby-net officer. And, you know, Baby-net only applies for I think it's the first -- I know it's the first three years of a child's life.

If you delay too long with a Baby-net hearing, it's too late. I think there -- I can foresee that there would be cases that would come up that would have to be heard -- that just by the nature of the case, it was more important that it be heard first, even though it might have been filed later.

| Printed Page 1740, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1760, Feb. 10 |