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 1980, Feb. 10
| Printed Page 2000, Feb. 10
|
Printed Page 1990 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
Q. I guess I was interested in it because it mentioned that you resolved
cases, and that was the term you used, resolved, involving businesses in
violation of occupational, safety and health standards. What did resolve
mean?
A. Basically, it was our position to try to settle cases prior to hearings,
and that's what I meant by resolve. I was there such a short period of time, I
did not get to actually participate in any hearings. But I did write a brief
for one particular hearing that Chief Counsel Sharon Dantzler had been lead
counsel on, had been working on, but she was out on sick leave at that
particular time, so I did have to fill in the gap in that regard.
Q. You've done a lot of study, but it appears that you have not been involved
in any litigation; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you think that poses a problem for you, being dropped into an ALJ
position on March 1st and immediately having to hear cases, contested cases?
A. Not at all. If I felt as though my lack of trial experience would serve as
a detriment to performing the functions of an administrative law judge, out of
respect for myself and for the committee and for the General Assembly, I would
not have offered for the position.
Q. What do you tell the chief judge is the best way to make immediate use of
you?
A. I'm not sure I understand the question, but I would imagine the same way
that he would any other ALJ.
Q. Are you prepared to immediately go, be ready to go and hear cases?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. I'm sorry. Are you prepared to immediately go and hear cases?
A. Yes, I believe I am.
Q. Tell me about the activity you've been engaged in, in outlining the
administrative law, Professor Shipley's book and so on. Have you completed that
task?
A. Yes, I have. As you know, this is not Professor Shipley's treatise but
it's about this thick, and it's heavily supplemented with case citations and
various citations of articles and other treatises. I have read that over the
last several months and I can say that I entirely outlined the entire document.
And I have also supplemented that outline by doing my own research, as I've
said, by reviewing case law over the last five years on administrative law in
South Carolina and reading various CLE articles on administrative law and
supplemented this material as well with that.
Q. Do you find any areas of special concern? All this is probably pretty
fresh on your mind, having gone through that. Any areas of special
Printed Page 1991 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
concern meshing administrative law with the Administrative Law Division
provisions that were passed in the Restructuring Act?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you share your outline?
A. Certainly.
Q. You've worked for the Senate for seven years and you mentioned it's with
Senate Research. During that time you've come to know both senators and house
members. What do you do if any of these officials seek your support in a
political campaign or in advancing some issue in the political arena?
A. As you know, Canon Seven expressly prohibits any political activity on the
part of a judge, and so I would not participate in any manner. Whether it be
contributions or endorsing a candidate at all, you don't
-- once you have refrained from any political participation.
Q. As an ALJ you'll be presiding over hearings of contested cases. What are
the considerations that underlie your determination whether you have a contested
case before you?
A. Well, I think you have to look at the definition of a contested case and
basically that would be prescribed by regulation, and, of course, a contested
case being one in which a party has a right to present their testimony or have
their rights determined after an opportunity for a hearing. So in order to make
that determination one would have to look to the rights of the particular agency
in question. And also there are due process considerations that would be
considered if such a hearing is not expressly prescribed by the regulation.
Q. Required by law, that portion of the definition of contested case, do you
think that includes due process, when a hearing is required by due process?
A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part of your question.
Q. Excuse me. In the definition of contested case in the APA where it says
required by law, a hearing is required by law, how do you take required by law?
Would that include when a hearing is required by procedural due process?
A. That includes case law as well as statutory law, of course, if that's what
you're asking me.
Q. What have you done to avoid conflicts between your public duties working
for the Senate and your efforts to seek the position of an ALJ?
A. I have taken annual leave during any times that I've made contact with
specific members.
Printed Page 1992 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
Q. Years and years from now, if you serve as an administrative law judge for a
lengthy period of time, how do you want people to look back and describe your
judicial temperament?
A. To be -- to look back and see that I was fair, that I was courteous, that I
was patient, and also that I was deliberate and firm in my rulings and decisions
but, at the same time, not arrogant; that I executed the functions and duties of
an administrative law judge while maintaining humility.
Q. Have you ever been held in contempt or sanctioned by a court for any
reason?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever been the subject of any disciplinary action arising out of
your employment?
A. No.
Q. Have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of a legislator's vote
for you for administrative law judge?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you aware of any solicitation without your authorization or
request?
A. I am not.
MR. ELLIOTT: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator McConnell.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. Have you sought the endorsement of any group of members of the General
Assembly or of a caucus of the General Assembly?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you participated in a formalized interview process other than this one
today or the one by the South Carolina Bar?
A. Yes, sir, I have. I was invited by the Columbia Lawyer's Association to
introduce myself and I did that on one occasion at one of their general
meetings. And I was invited by the Legislative Black Caucus to introduce myself
to them as well and, I guess, for interview purposes.
Q. They were not interviews like today, though, were they?
A. No, sir. It probably lasted maybe five -- ten -- fifteen minutes at the
most, I would -- I think, from my recollection.
Q. Have you directly or indirectly had any meetings or conversations
pertaining to your candidacy with members of the Bar Screening Committee, the
Bar's employees or lobbyists representing the Bar either before you were
screened or after you were screened but prior to the Bar's screening report
being made public?
Printed Page 1993 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
A. Other than the initial contact to set up the meeting for the purposes of
the screening, no, sir.
Q. And the contact that you had, you called it the Columbia --
A. Lawyer's Association.
Q. Lawyer's Association, they invited you?
A. Yes, sir, they wrote me a letter and invited me.
Q. And the Legislative Black Caucus, they invited you?
A. Yes, sir, they wrote me -- invited me by way of letter.
Q. Thank you, sir.
SENATOR MOORE: Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Senator Moore.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:
Q. Mr. Geathers, do you recall the date you were first contacted by the
Bar regarding interview scheduling?
A. Yes, sir, it was last week, Monday.
Q. The 3rd. What date did the interview take place?
A. It was on Wednesday, which would be the --
Q. The 5th.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thank you. Where did the interview take place?
A. At the Bar Building.
Q. Here in Columbia?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many interviewers participated in your interview?
A. Two.
Q. Do you recall what part of the state they reside?
A. One interviewer was Betsy Gray and I assume she's from Columbia, and the
other interviewer was Bob Erwin and he's currently in Myrtle Beach and has plans
of moving to Greenville.
Q. Did you have any previous acquaintance with either of the interviewers?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you furnish a list of references?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many?
A. Five independent of the listing provided in my Personal Data
Questionnaire.
Q. Do you have any knowledge if they were contacted?
A. No, sir.
Q. When and how were you notified of the results?
Printed Page 1994 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
A. I received a letter, I believe it was the earlier part of this week or last
-- the end of last week, I can't recall, but it was by letter.
Q. Somewhere around January 10th?
A. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Thank you, Mr. Geathers.
MR. GEATHERS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next applicant is Alison Renee Lee.
ALISON RENEE LEE, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire
Summary?
MS. LEE: Yes, I have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it correct?
MS. LEE: It's correct except for I'd like to make one addition, please. Under
the CLE requirements, I did have one additional hour of credit which was
obtained in November of 1993.
THE CHAIRMAN: Other than that change, is the Personal Data Questionnaire
correct?
MS. LEE: That's correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to our making that summary a part of
the record of your sworn testimony?
MS. LEE: None.
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be done at this point.
PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY
1. Alison Renee Lee
Home Address: Business Address:
141 Silver Lake Circle S. C. Legislative Council
Columbia, SC 29212 P. O. Box 11489
Columbia, SC 29202
2. She was born in Washington, D.C. on September 17, 1958. She is presently
35 years old.
4. She was married to Kenzil Franklin Summey on May 3, 1986. She has two
children: Julian Christopher Summey, age 5, and Amanda Leigh Summey, age
2.
5. Military Service: N/A.
Printed Page 1995 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
6. She attended Vassar College, September 1975 to May 1979, Bachelors of Arts
degree; Tulane University School of Law, September 1979 to May 1982, J.D.;
University of Grenoble, France -Summer 1980; and the University of South
Carolina Law School - Summer 1984.
8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has generally received more than the required number of credits for
each year, carrying over 12 credits for the following year.
1989: carried over credits from 1988
Current Developments in Employment and Labor Law (10.0)
Employment and Discrimination Law under the New Supreme Court (2.0)
1990: carried over credits from 1989
Current Developments in Labor and Employment Law (10.5)
Appellate Practice in South Carolina (6.5)
1991: carried over credits from 1990
Criminal Practice (7.17)
Legal Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (3.0)
Evidence Law Update (6.0)
1992: carried over credits from 1991
Problem, What Problem? (Ethics) (6.0)
1993: Restructured State Government (6.0)
Civil Law Update I (3.0)
Civil Law Update II (3.0)
Education Financing in South Carolina (2.0)
Criminal Practice (upcoming) (6.5)
9. Taught or Lectured:
JCLE - Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court - Topic:Settling the
Family Court Appeal (August, 1985)
Basic Federal Practice - Topic: Pretrial Orders, Sanctions & Local
Rules (September, 1985)
12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1982-1984 Law Clerk of Judge Israel Augustine then Judge C. Tolbert
Goolsby.
Printed Page 1996 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
1984-1989 Associate, McNair Law Firm, P.A., primarily litigation in
contract or consumer related issues. Last two years employment
and labor law related litigation.
1989-present Legislative Council drafting legislation and amendments for the
members of the General Assembly in areas of highways, crimes,
corrections and prisons, and education.
13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:She is not rated to her knowledge.
She was listed as an associate with McNair Law Firm, P.A.
14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Answers for 1984-1989 time period
Federal - 90%
State - 10%
Other - some cases included representation before an administrative hearing
officer
15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 90%
Criminal - 5%
Domestic - 5%
16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 20%
Non-jury - 80% (matters resolved on motions or settled)
Most often as associate counsel, although some matters were as sole
counsel or as lead counsel
17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or
appellate court:
(a) McClain v. Westinghouse, et al. - involved employment related
claims of race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment and equal pay
claims. She represented Westinghouse. It was resolved on summary
judgment in an opinion that was over 100 pages.
(b) U. S. Department of Labor v. Fluor Daniel Construction. This
was a trial of alleged violations of OSHA standards. It
Printed Page 1997 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
was a four-week trial before an administrative law judge in Paducky, Kentucky
and Nashville, Tennessee. Penalties in excess of $10,000 was involved. It was
settled before appeal.
(c) Eun Mee Oh v. Kyoto Japanese Steak House. This involved
personal injury claims against Kyoto involving severe burns to the face
and upper body. She represented the Plaintiff in Federal Court. The
case was settled.
(d) State v. Norris Stroman. She was appointed with lead counsel to
represent Stroman in a murder case. The trial was in Richland County.
There was a verdict for the Defendant.
(e) Atkinson v. Citicorp Acceptance Corporation. She represented
Citicorp in a case involving claims of unfair debt collection
practices. It was resolved on summary judgment in favor of Citicorp in
Federal Court.
18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Purdie v. Small, 293 S.C. 216 (Ct. App. 1987) This was a
custody dispute involving a New York court order and enforcement in
South Carolina.
(b) Hooten v. Carolina Treatment Center, 300 S.C. 37 (Ct. App. 1989)
This was a breach of contract dispute involving interpretation of
liquidated damages clause among others.
40. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
Stationery - $97.65
Printing - $34.65
Postage - $49.59
Telephone - $20.88
45. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association (until 1990); Richland County Bar Association (until
1990); Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances and Discipline (1987-
1989); Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing
Legal Education (July, 1987 - June, 1988)
46. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Planning Committee, United Way of the Midlands (1985-1990), Agency Review
Subcommittee and Demonstration and Development Funding and Admissions
Subcommittee (Chairman), Advisory Board, Project Blueprint, United Way of the
Midlands; Board of Directors,
Printed Page 1998 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
Richland County Department of Social Services (1984-1988); Columbia Chapter
Links, Inc. (1987-present), Corresponding Secretary (1990-1993), Vice President
(1993-1994); Columbia Chapter Jack and Jill of America (1993); St. Peters
Catholic School Board (1993-1996); St. Peters Catholic Home School Association,
Chairman of By-Laws Committee (1993-1994)
48. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Ms. Lois M. Snipes, Vice President
First Citizens Bank
P. O. Box 29, Columbia, SC 29202
733-2070
(b) Richard J. Morgan, Esquire
McNair and Sanford, P.A.
P. O. Box 11390, Columbia, SC 29202
799-9800
(c) G. Anderson Surles
Director, Judicial Services
South Carolina Supreme Court
P. O. Box 50447, Columbia, SC 29250
734-2360
(d) Carolyn Holderman
Guest Relations, Richland Memorial Hospital
#5 Richland Medical Park, Columbia, SC 29203
434-6237
(e) Clarence Davis, Esquire
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough
P. O. Box 11070, Columbia, SC 29211
799-2000
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no
formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. The
records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, the Richland County
Sheriff's Office, Columbia City Police Department, are both negative. SLED and
FBI records are negative. Judgement Rolls of Richland County are negative.
Federal court records are negative. No complaints or statements have been
received and no persons have asked to be present to testify against you. Prior
to turning you over to Mr. Elliott for questioning, I would offer you the same
opportunity that was offered the others to make a brief opening statement.
Printed Page 1999 . . . . . Thursday, February 10,
1994
MS. LEE: I would like to thank the committee for that opportunity, but I waive
at this time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Elliott.
MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you.
MS. LEE - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. You had been associated with the McNair Firm for five years, 1984 to
1989.
A. That's correct. Mr. Elliott, if you would please speak up in the mike a
little bit better so I can hear you.
Q. Sorry. Tell us a little bit about your litigation experience during that
period of time.
A. During that period of time, I came in as an associate. The cases I handled
were basically contract or some tort disputes, mostly contract claims. Near the
end of that time period -- I was in a litigation section for approximately three
years. During that time they were mostly contract disputes or tort disputes.
There was some other areas, including criminal law defense work. There were
some claims regarding consumer protection. There was a variety of cases.
After that point I changed sections within the firm. You may be aware that
the firm specializes in various sections within the law firm. I then moved to
the corporate and tax section for about -- for one year. During the time that I
was there, instead of doing corporate and tax work I ended up doing labor and
employment law work and spent the last two years at the firm doing employment
and labor law related litigation.
Q. How would you describe the volume of litigation you handled? It must have
been substantial if you were at one point in time in the litigation section.
A. There were quite a number of cases that I handled, not always as sole
counsel. The majority of them were either as co-counsel -- the majority of them
were co-counsel or provided some support function with respect to cases that
were handled. But most of them, as I said, were lead counsel -- or not as lead
counsel but as co-counsel. The volume of them -- most of it was federal court
practice and not state court practice, but there were probably about several
hundred that I handled throughout the course of the entire time that I was
there, in some form or fashion.
Q. What were your responsibilities as co-counsel?
A. They could range anywhere from drafting responsive pleadings to
interviewing witnesses to depositions to brief writing to motions in court to
appeals, a wide range of activities.
Q. Do you think that experience is going to be beneficial to you or would it
make any difference if you didn't have any litigation experience?
| Printed Page 1980, Feb. 10
| Printed Page 2000, Feb. 10
|
Page Finder Index