| Printed Page 5170, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5190, Apr. 28 |

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
In addition to obtaining far in excess of normal hours of legal CLE required by the Bar, he has had the distinct pleasure of attending Judicial Continuing Education; including two courses at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, including a course on advanced evidence and another course on forensic, scientific and medical evidence. In addition, he has attended a judicial conference at Harvard Law School on a judge's philosophy of law and judging. He attends the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention on a regular basis and attends the Continuing Education there, as well as attending other Continuing Education courses.

9. Taught or Lectured:
Business Law - Columbia Junior College, 1975-1979
U.S.C. Law School, 1977, Prosecution Clinic
U.S.C. College of Criminal Justice, 1990-1991, Criminal Procedure

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1975-1978 Assistant Solicitor for Fifth Judicial Circuit - prosecuted in General Sessions Court and juveniles in Family Court
1978-1990 Associate, then partner with Holler, Gregory and McKellar, which became Holler, Dennis and Olive
1990-present Sole practitioner, Law Offices of Steven D. Dennis. In private practice, he has tried cases in all courts of this state and handled appeals in the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the South Carolina Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:He is not rated at this time since no request has been made. Part-time judges are not rated.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - about 4 per year

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 33 1/3%
Criminal - 33 1/3%
Domestic - 33 1/3%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 80%
Non-Jury - 20%
Most often he appears as sole counsel and occasionally as chief counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Danny Lail. Mr. Lail was charged with two murders and two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill in General Sessions Court. Initially, as Mr. Lail's attorney, he had to fend off the threat of the death penalty, which with the help of computer research (there was no Westlaw or Lexis at that time), he was able to do so. The trial drew great media attention for five days, and eventually Mr. Lail was convicted. He had finished his first murder case (there would be more later) and felt that he had given his client excellent representation while dealing with a host of outside distractions (the media, death threats, etc.).
(b) Jesse Myers. He represented Mr. Myers in Richland County Family Court in 1979, in a custody action. He has no proof, but he believes Mr. Myers was one of the first men to get custody of a one-year-old daughter in a battle against the mother (his wife), where there was no wrongdoing on behalf of the mother. The Court was convinced that Mr. Myers was simply the better parent. This case meant a lot to him personally, since he honestly believed in his client's position, although it was an unpopular one at that time. His daughter has grown into a fine young lady, and he has stayed in touch with Jesse and his family over the years.
(c) Cathy Clinkscales. The Family Court appointed him to this case, and for almost three years they fought Richland County D.S.S. and the Foster Care Review Board for custody and

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Yoko Frank (93-UP-076). Custody was the issue in this appeal. He did not represent Ms. Frank at trial but did file her appeal. Although they did not prevail in this appeal, he feels that this was an important case and that the brief filed in the case was well written.
(b) Mary La Pan (92-MO-202). The other party appealed the Court's Order, and eventually Ms. La Pan prevailed in this case. The main issue was the interpretation of several fairly technical Rules of Civil Procedure. He knows from discussing the matter with the Judge after the decision had been rendered that he was happy that the case had come out like it did since it gave him some additional discretion in the future to make sure that no injustices were done.
(c) Charles Davie. Although this was not strictly a domestic appeal, it dealt with equitable issues similar to those found in

20. Judicial Office:
Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia from May, 1990 to present. This is a Summary Court with criminal jurisdiction up to $500 or 30 days. They also hold Preliminary Hearings for all crimes and bail proceedings for all crimes except those carrying a life sentence.

21. Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
Since the Municipal Court is a Summary Court, they don't issue such Orders or Opinions.

25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
He taught High School at Airport High School during the 1971-1972 school year.

32. Sued: Divorce Proceeding

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Meadowfield Elementary School Educational Trust

46. He sincerely believes that he has the appropriate mix of intellectual, personal and professional experiences and qualifications to perform the duties of Family Court Judge in a manner that does justice to the litigants, upholds the written word of law, and perhaps more importantly, resolves the real human issues troubling the citizens of our great state. He believes being correct is important, but not alone sufficient, to the administration of the judicial system. Ultimately, they serve people, our fellow human beings. They should be made to feel that even if the final decision did not go their way, that they were dealt with fairly, patiently and with respect. This will solve more problems than all the laws on the books put together.

47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Craig A. Driggers, Assistant Vice President
First Union National Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 728, Columbia, SC 29202
251-4400
Don Oberhausen, Senior Vice President
Director of Operations and Data Processing
Republic National Bank
P. O. Box 52, Columbia, SC 29202
748-7000
(b) Susan Z. Hitt, Esquire
Office of the Federal Public Defender
Room 146, 1835 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC 29201
765-5147
(c) Richard Layman
Bruccoli Clark Layman, Inc.
2006 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29201-2157
771-4642
(d) James C. Harrison, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 50006, Columbia, SC 29250
779-2211

2. Positions on the Bench:
Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia
May, 1990 through present

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands.

The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, Richland County Sheriff's, Columbia City Police, SLED and FBI, all those turned up negative. The Judgement Rolls of Richland County showed two cases in which you were a defendant representing an estate. It appears that in both cases Summary Judgment was granted to the Plaintiff as to liability issues. The records show you as a defendant in a domestic proceeding as well. The Federal Court records are negative. Does all that sound correct?
MR. DENNIS: Yes, sir, it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right we have no complaints or statements that we've received against you. No witnesses are present to testify against you. Prior to turning you over to Ms. McNamee for questioning, we give all candidates the choice to do one of two things, one either make a brief oral statement to be put into the transcript or if you should so desire to reduce a statement to writing that we would incorporate the record. You have that opportunity now, if you so choose.
MR. DENNIS: I would waive that.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Ms. McNamee.
MS. MCNAMEE: Thank you.
MR. DENNIS - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Mr. Dennis, our records do not show any campaign expenditures on your part; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay, I just want to make sure of that. And when you do make you some expenditures, if you will supplement --
A. I will. Thank you.
Q. -- that. Thank you. Mr. Dennis, you are a part time municipal judge?

I think the two are actually complimentary and not in conflict. In my practice, I will frankly tell you that I'm sort of like yard dog that doesn't bark and doesn't growl at anybody unless I'm in the corner and made to do so.

I think I best represent my clients often when I resolve disputes, when matters are negotiated and not when they are always in such conflict. That's sort of the attitude I take. Now, if you push me in a corner and make me, then I will do that, but my general approach to practicing law is that most everyone is better off if you just resolve things without having to go to that all or nothing situation. And frankly the truth often lies somewhere in the middle on these things anyhow. And I think that has played into my role as a judge.

I've tried a lot of cases. I think I've won my share, but I don't set out every case trying to prove the other side is a son of a gun and I'm the most brilliant guy in the world and I'm going to take you behind the woodpile and whip you. I start off with the attitude of what is a fair, decent, good resolution and then try to work towards that. Perhaps even creating one sometimes. So I don't see any conflict there.
Q. What is your judicial temperament? What -- could you describe for me what you think are the qualities that make up a good judge and then also describe for us what your strongest qualities are and perhaps where your weak points are?
A. Well, thank you. I could probably talk all day on what I think makes a good judge. I'll try not to talk all day. I actually had prepared a speech to give here and I tried it out on my oldest son this weekend and he said, "Dad, are you going to sit there and brag on yourself all day in front of all those people?" And so I decided not to give the speech.

I think a judge has got to have lots of qualities, and I think a Family Court judge especially because they sit both as fact finder and the

When people are being dealt with in terms of their children and custody and contempt, jailing children, whether those children are to be tried as adults or juveniles, those sorts of matters, they are lifelong decisions for many people. And in many cases the most important thing that ever happens to them, happens in the Family Court, so I think that a judge in Family Court has to have a lot of talent and ability.

I think first of all you have to be able to analyze the problems and the issues, so that you know what it is you're supposed to be putting your efforts into. I would say that I think analysis is one of my strong points. I was -- this probably doesn't have anything to do with being a lawyer, but I was highly ranked in South Carolina in chess at one time when I was younger. I was a National Merit Scholar. I've been on the debate team. I majored in mathematics and minored in physics. I spent a good bit of my life analyzing things and I think I'm good at that. But I also think you have to be able to communicate with the people.

Once you've analyzed it, then you can't do an egg (phonetic) out of that. You've got to be practical about it. Even if you make the right decision, when those people walk out of that courtroom believing that they haven't been dealt with fairly, even if they have been, you've failed. You've both got to be right and communicate with them why you think you're right and a little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down and if you deal with those people as individuals, and I think I'm good at that, and let them know that their case has been seriously considered from all aspects, and even if you disagree with them, I think they will accept that a lot better. And, frankly, in Family Court and in my court, in Municipal Court, I have criminal domestic violence charges all the time down there, if I send those people back out there having given one side a bad taste in their mouth or the other, that problem is not resolved. It's going to be back in my court or maybe even in a higher court. I'm got to deal with the legal problem and the people. And I think I can do that.

I think I've had some good experience on the City Court and I think that is a positive. I'm sure I've got some negatives and you probably ought to ask some of the people that appear in front of me what they are. I try my best and I do make mistakes, but I give it my best effort every time.

So I typically get up and go to my office early in the morning, 7:30 or 8:00 o'clock on the days where I have to be in court, work for a while, then go to court, come back and eat lunch sitting at the desk on days when I have court. Go back to court in the afternoon if it's required that day and then come back and work awhile in the evening.

On days when I don't have court, I sleep a little later and get in a little later and go on home. But it gets a little hectic sometime, but, you know, just got to do it. I've worked a lot longer hours for a lot less pay in my life, so it's not all that difficult, frankly.
Q. Your PDQ states that your practice is evenly divided into thirds, civil, criminal and domestic. Is that accurate?
A. That's a rough estimate.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. Rough estimate.
Q. The reason I ask you if it's accurate is you say also that 80 percent of your practice is jury and 20 percent is nonjury. Is that also accurate?
A. Well, I think I misstated that. I think 80 percent would be what I call trials and I included domestic work in the trials and 20 percent would be appellate work or administrative work or other matters that aren't actually trials.
Q. Okay.
A. But as the result of some other source or procedure, so I apologize. I think I was in error then.
Q. Have you ever handled an adoption in your private practice?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you ever represented a man in a paternity hearing?
A. Many times.
Q. Have you ever been involved in a termination of parental rights?
A. I certainly have. Both defending and helping to prosecute on both sides of that.
Q. Have you ever represented a juvenile in Family Court?

I don't think you're doing your job if you send the problem back out into the home or into the community to fester. Anybody can put a Band Aide and send somebody on back out the door, that's not doing the job. Likewise I don't think you're doing your job if you foster an appeal in every case and just pass the buck along to some other court. The trial judge in any system is the person who has the best chance to resolve the problems of the people before them and that's my goal is to send the people out of that room both resolved and feeling that they have been resolved.
Q. How would you deal with truancy issues, for instance, if you get 25 young people in your courtroom lining the walls and they're all in there because they have not been going to school?
A. I think you've got to determine whose fault it is they're not going to school. In most instances, it's my belief the parents can do a lot more to solve those problems than the court can, and sometimes you need to get the parents' attention.

I do deal with people who are juveniles in traffic cases in my court. And most of the time, I deem it to be the younger person's fault and not their parents' fault that they were speeding or running a red light and I try

| Printed Page 5170, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5190, Apr. 28 |