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 5300, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5320, Apr. 28 |
Printed Page 5310 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
Q. You've been on the Colleton County Council and have run for the House, South Carolina House of Representatives?
A. Right.
Q. Do you understand your ethical responsibilities as a judge with regard to political activities?
A. Yes.
Q. And what are those responsibilities?
A. There can be none. That was a big consideration when I decided to run, was whether or not I wanted to give that up, because I've been involved in politics for a long time and I really like it. But since I've been on Colleton County Council and done some other things I'm more interested now in the public service aspect of it than I am in the political aspect of it.
Q. And that's the reason I asked the question.
A. Yes.
Q. Some people tend to get hooked on politics and it's hard to give up.
A. Well, you have to realize that there are two components, the political component, that's the fun part. And then the public service component, sometimes that can be drudgery, but it's -- I enjoy politics. I always have and I hate to give it up, but I do want to pursue this and I'm prepared to do that.
Q. You did report your interest in the law office building. As I understand, it --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you intend to divest that?
A. I've already talked to my partner and, assuming this goes well, I'm ready to turn that over.
Q. You also report being the owner and sole employee of a title insurance company.
A. Yes.
Q. What would be your plans with regard to that title insurance company?
A. I'm ready to shut that down. We decided to do -- or I decided to do that about ten years ago to help out our real estate practice. We represent a savings and loan association and do a fair amount of real estate, and this was very helpful in preparing closings.

And that's -- but that's been limited -- the limited use of it has been in that area, so it will take a very short period of time to close that down.
Q. On the average, how many hours do you work in a week?
A. I usually get to the office about 8:00 o'clock and I usually leave about 6:00 or 6:30, so however that averages out. I'm there late on

Printed Page 5311 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
Fridays, and usually there on the weekends, at least one day on the weekend.
Q. How do you envision, or how would -- as a judge, how would you envision your workday? When's it going to start and when's it going to end? Is it going to be much like your experience now?
A. I think it'd be very similar. I'd like to get there about 8:00, or maybe a little earlier, and do some of the things in preparation for holding court. I don't think that a hearing should start before 9:00 or 9:30, in order for the litigants to get together and actually come over to the courthouse and be prepared. But I'd like to take a little extra time before then to maybe work on orders, maybe work on maybe some continuing education for me, reading Supreme Court Reports and things like that. And I don't have any problems staying late to do orders or to meet with people who have problems late in the afternoon.

As a member of a county council, I think I have a meeting every night, so I very rarely get home before 9:00 o'clock, so I have no problems staying late.
Q. Do you have any special thoughts on how you would operate your courtroom to achieve efficiency?
A. The judges that I admire the most are the judges who project a presence in court. When you come in, you know who the judge is, that judge makes it plain to the attorneys, particularly to the litigants, particularly in a Family Court situation, early on and operates court in an efficient manner and makes certain that you stick to the time limits that have been imposed on you to the extent possible, and just runs the court efficiently and on time.
Q. I think what you're saying, mostly about sticking to a set schedule? Is that what --
A. Yes. Now, sometimes that's not always possible. I've taken plenty of court -- plenty of cases in front of judges where we thought it would take an hour and it ended up taking longer than that, but --
Q. Well, in Family Court, a lot of things seem to drop out at the last minute as well.
A. That's true.
Q. Is there anything you do to handle that sort of thing, to make the court operate more efficiently?
A. Well, I believe that -- a lot of the judges are doing this now. I believe that you should have more pretrial conferences with attorneys on cases that have been scheduled for large blocks of time to see if anything can be knocked out, to see if you can get to any issues.

Printed Page 5312 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
I also believe that the judge ought to suggest to a number of these attorneys and litigants to have temporary hearings, that a lot of these issues can be mediated. And I think that that will -- I know that in my cases, it's helped me get cases better prepared and it's helped me to be able to project the amount of time I need a lot better than if I don't do something like that.

And a lot of these cases, you get everything ready, you're ready for a day-long hearing, you go over to the courthouse, you stand around and talk a few minutes and you settle everything; go in there, change your pleadings and go in for a 15-minute hearing. That happens quite often.

And I think if you have more pretrials, I think if you have more mediation, you're going to get rid of those issues and you're going to know, and that's going to help the administration of the court.
Q. How do you think it's important for a judge to act, both towards the litigants and the attorneys?
A. Going back to the judges I admire the most, these are the judges who are polite to the litigants, but firm with them. And these are the ones who don't do anything to degrade or make fun of the litigants' position. Particularly the lawyer's position, too. I've had several case -- situations where I've had to get up and make arguments which could have been ridiculed by a sitting judge, and I've had that happen at times.

But the judges I admire most are the ones who take the argument, make a ruling on it, and these are the judges who are, I won't say all business, but they make you feel like you're getting a fair hearing and they make you feel like you're respected in the courtroom.
Q. You may have just mentioned one, but have you had experiences that have helped you develop a sense of compassion? Having a judge listen to your --
A. I have a lot that developed a sense of humility. And I think I've had a -- I've had several judges -- the judges I -- the judge I want to replace, Judge Kleckley, is one of the judges I have a great deal of respect for because he will listen to your argument and he will make a ruling on it, and he may take you back later and say, that was ridiculous, but he's not going to do that in front of the litigants. And I've had judges who have done that exact same thing.

And that's one of the things I really admire in a judge, particularly in a Family Court situation because it is so emotion packed. It's not like somebody coming up and suing somebody because they didn't pay him on a note or foreclosing a mortgage or something like that. These people are really -- they're really intent, they're really into what's going on, and a lot of cases, they're bitter and they're not thinking properly. And I

Printed Page 5313 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
think the judge in a Family Court situation has a much greater responsibility to treat this in a way that these people walk out and they're not -- and they don't feel like they've been abused.
Q. The Judicial Code of Conduct allows judges to accept social hospitality, but not gifts. How broadly would you define social hospitality?
A. Well, I would not accept any gifts of anything tangible. I would also avoid any social setting where I might be in direct contact with people who are litigants in cases pending or people who I think may very well have cases pending in the near future. I would just avoid that at all possible times.
Q. If you're elected a Family Court Judge, how do you envision making your decision and writing -- having the orders prepared?
A. I was in here yesterday when you asked that question of the people for the Fifth Circuit, and almost everyone said that they wanted to write theirs themselves. That just doesn't work in a small circuit like ours. There just isn't the support staff to do it.

What I would like to do is make a decision, hopefully immediately, on the date of the trial, before the people and announce it to the court and read it in the record and ask one of the attorneys to prepare an order, to submit it to me and to submit it to the opposing attorney, or to the other party if there is no attorney. And then I would take that order, go over it very carefully, compare it with the notes that I've taken at trial and issue that order.
Q. In Family Court, oftentimes one of the parties isn't represented by an attorney, and that tends to be the group that wants to come to you and talk about the case without the attorney on the other side or the other party. How do you feel about that?
A. I believe that whether that person is represented or whether that person is not represented, that them coming to you is still an ex parte communication, and I would have to explain to them that I cannot do that, that I would be glad to try to get the other attorney and sit down and see what the complaint is.

I know that is a problem. I had that arise just a couple of weeks ago, where we had an order that the other party did not agree with and got an attorney and came back. We had to have another hearing on it. The situation came out the same, but it still was a problem.

But even though that person is not represented, on a communication like that you couldn't treat them any differently than someone who was represented, that you would have to avoid the ex parte communication and get the attorney involved.

Printed Page 5314 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
Q. If you're a Family Court Judge, what would you do about hearing cases involving your partner, Mr. Kinard?
A. I would -- I don't think I would hear those cases. I think that I would have to -- of course, I would have to recuse myself from anything that would have been in the office while I was practicing. And after that, I would probably recuse myself for, I would say, at least a year, until anything that had been in the office had been cleared out.
Q. Have you been sanctioned or held in contempt by a court?
A. No.
Q. You mentioned in your Personal Data Questionnaire that you'd contacted a number of people across the state. You essentially have them --
A. Yes.
Q. -- poised to make some contacts on your behalf after -- and, as it indicated, it was after screening; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. What have you done to insure that they have not done anything until after screening?
A. When I contacted these people, and most of them are members of county councils all over the state. I was State Chairman for two terms of the County Council Coalition, which is a group of all county council members, and I know a lot of them very well. A lot of them offered to help and -- but what I did with each one of these was to send -- everyone who showed an interest, I sent them a letter, I sent them a resume, and then I sent them a copy of the law as to what you can do and when you could do it, and I tried in my letter to spell out exactly what was proper and what wasn't proper.

I have talked to some of those people since this proceeding has been going on and I have reminded them, please don't do anything until screening is over and the report is out.
Q. Have you sought -- other than the activity we've just talked about, have you sought in any other way a pledge of a Member of the General Assembly?
A. No.
Q. Have you asked anybody else, other than what we've already talked about, to contact a Member of the General Assembly?
A. No.
MR. ELLIOTT: That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from Members? Thank you very much, Mr. Beach.
A. Thank you.

Printed Page 5315 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: The next candidate is Jane Dowling Fender. Ms. Fender, would you step forward, please?
JANE DOWLING FENDER, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire?
MS. FENDER: Yes, sir, I have and I have two additions. I forgot to put some things in here. First of all, I'm a member of the Family Law Council of the South Carolina Bar, and I've been on that since 1992. And the other thing that I forgot to put in is my honor, that I was awarded the Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year Award in 1991. Those two additions. Other than that, it's correct. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any objection of making the Summary a part of your record?
MS. FENDER: No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be done at this time.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Jane Dowling Fender
Home Address: Business Address:
2007 Bay Street 1509 King Street
Beaufort, SC 29902 P. O. Drawer 1507
Beaufort, SC 29901-1507

2. She was born in Beaufort, South Carolina on September 17, 1946. She is presently 47 years old.

4. She was previously divorced: February 14, 1980; Sherwood N. Fender (moving party); Beaufort County, South Carolina Family Court; one year's continuous separation without cohabitation. She has two children:Sherwood N., Jr., age 27 (teacher), and Addison D., age 18 (Freshman at the University of South Carolina).

5. Military Service: No.

6. She attended the University of South Carolina (Columbia, South Carolina), 1965-1967 (left due to husband receiving job in Spartanburg, South Carolina); Converse College (Spartanburg, South Carolina), 1967-1968 (left due to husband receiving job in Beaufort, South Carolina); Armstrong College (Savannah, Georgia), 1967

Printed Page 5316 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
-1969, B.A. in Political Science; and the University of South Carolina School of Law (Columbia, South Carolina), 1982-1984, Juris Doctor.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has attended over 15 hours of various Continuing Legal Education courses offered by the South Carolina Bar and by various agencies offering such courses each year since being admitted to the practice of law.

9. Taught or Lectured:
She has lectured at the Technical College of the Low Country (as substitute teacher) in domestic law.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
Law Office of Harvey L. Golden; Columbia, South Carolina; February-July, 1985; Family Law Practice
Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough; Columbia, South Carolina, August 1985-August 1986; Insurance Defense
Dowling, Sanders, Dukes, Williams, Infinger, Patterson & Meeks; August 1986-May 1992; General Practice, concentrating in Family Law
Dowling Law Firm, P.A.; May 1992 to present; General Practice, concentrating in Family Law

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:BV

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 0
State - several times a week
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 5% (predominantly Probate Court)
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 95% (including juvenile criminal matters)

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 0%
Non-Jury - 100%
Sole Counsel

Printed Page 5317 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Sherbert v. Sherbert. A divorce with an unusual fact situation concerning a 32-year marriage, with a 18-year separation and sporadic marital relations. The husband continued to give the wife support, both emotionally and financially. He was a radiologist with substantial assets, primarily acquired after separation, and a very favorable settlement was negotiated for the wife.
(b) Department of Social Services v. Hearne. She represented a young mother who suffered from Muchausen Syndrome by Proxy, (MSP), a mental condition which caused her to secretly harm her own children for the sympathy she received because her children were so sick. Beaufort County D.S.S. had never been faced with M.S.P. before, and neither had she. The mother was so very convincing that everyone believed that her corpsman husband had been administering drugs to the children. Handwriting experts proved the mother had forged prescriptions and had filled them in Charleston. When faced with evidence she could not explain away, the mother committed suicide.
(c) Morrison v. Morrison. The husband filed for a reduction of child support and alimony based upon his reduced financial situation. She represented the wife and proved husband's assets had not been reduced but that he was manipulating finances to suit his own purposes.
(d) Domino v. Domino. She represented the father in this action and succeeded in having the Court award him custody of his three minor children from his adulterous homemaker spouse.
(e) Department of Social Services v. Youmans. She represented the custodial grandfather who was falsely accused of molesting his granddaughter by the D.S.S. The case involved lengthy psychological evaluations and challenged D.S.S. methodology of interviews with children. She believes Beaufort County D.S.S. has changed its interviewing policy because of this case.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
None.

Printed Page 5318 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
1969-1970 Substitute Teacher; Beaufort County Schools; Beaufort, South Carolina; all grades
1970-1971 Science Teacher; Beaufort Academy; Beaufort, South Carolina; 5th grade
1978-1979 Real Estate Salesman; Diversified Properties, Inc.; Beaufort, South Carolina
1980-1982 Paralegal; Remler & Henderson Law Firm; Savannah, Georgia

28. Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
Partner, Dowling Law Firm, P.A. She will not hear contested matters in which her brother is involved.

39. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
Postage $50.00
Stationery $10.00
Identification Badge $6.50

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar, Member 1985 to present; American Bar Association, Member 1985 to present; Beaufort County Bar, Member 1986 to present; Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity, Justice Pinckney Chapter, 1983-1984 (Vice-Justice, Palmetto Alumnae Chapter, 1985-1986)

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Program, Richland and Beaufort Counties, Member 1984 to present; Low Country Mediation Network, Member 1990 to present; Mental Health Association of Beaufort and Jasper Counties, Board Member 1987 to 1991, Secretary 1988 to 1991; St. Helena's Episcopal Church, Beaufort, South Carolina, Board of Episcopal Church Women (1987 to present), Advisor to Episcopal Young Churchmen (1987 to 1993), Sunday School Teacher (1986 to present); Child Abuse Prevention Association (C.A.P.A.), Board Member 1994; Coastal Speech and Hearing Clinic, Board Member 1988 to 1993, Chairman 1990 to 1992; Coastal Empire Mental Health Clinic, Board Member 1989 to present; Beaufort High School, School Improvement Council 1991-1993; Beaufort County Public School Education Foundation, Board

Printed Page 5319 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
Member 1988 to present; American Cancer Society, Beaufort Chapter, Board Member 1990 to present; and Greater Beaufort County Boys & Girls Club, Board Member 1992 to present

46. She feels that her life experiences as a wife and mother and as a former wife and single parent, coupled with her legal training and experience with Family Court matters makes her an ideal candidate for a Family Court Judge.

47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) John R. Perrill, Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 1047, Beaufort, SC 29901
522-2200
(b) William C. Robinson, CPA
Robinson Grant & Co., P.A.
P. O. Box 1406, Beaufort, SC 29901-1406
524-3003
(c) W. Brantley Harvey, Jr., Esquire
Harvey & Battey, P.A.
P. O. Drawer 1107, Beaufort, SC 29901-1107
524-3109
(d) Robert B. Dunbar, Interim Rector
St. Helena's Episcopal Church
P. O. Box 1043, Beaufort, SC 29901-1043
522-1712
(e) Raymond H. Williams, Esquire
Dukes, Williams, Infinger & Meeks, P.A.
P. O. Drawer 1027, Beaufort, SC 29901
521-5000

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges have ever been filed against you. The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, Beaufort County Sheriff, Beaufort City Police, SLED and FBI, are all negative.

Judgement Rolls of Beaufort County are negative. Federal Court records are negative. No complaints were received, no witnesses are present to testify against you.

Prior to Mr. Elliott questioning you, you have the chance to make a -- or an opportunity to make a statement or to submit a written statement for the record.

| Printed Page 5300, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5320, Apr. 28 |
Page Finder Index