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 6830, May 17 | Printed Page 6850, May 17 |
Printed Page 6840 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
MR. KOTTI: That's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Would you please raise your right hand.
DOUGLAS K. KOTTI, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
SENATOR MCCONNELL: There is your first screening, correct, sir?
MR. KOTTI: Yes, sir. That's correct. Except for the Bar screening. This is my first screening with this committee.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MR. KOTTI: Yes.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Is it correct or does it need any changes?
MR. KOTTI: The only changes I would have, Senator, would be there is one question where there is -- it asked you to go into your experience as a lecturer or a preparer of materials for the Continuing Legal Education seminars and that I had -- this is my fault probably. I didn't supply all that because I had done so many. I've probably done 30 of them, but that's the only thing that's lacking. And I don't think that makes that much difference to the substance of the questionnaire really. So that -- I have no objection to it going in as it is in its current form.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Staff is shaking their heads with approval, so -- is there any objection to our making the Summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony?
MR. KOTTI: No, sir.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: It be shall be done at this point in the transcript.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Douglas K. Kotti
Home Address: Business Address:
116 Spartan Drive 6326 St. Andrews Road
Columbia, SC 29212 Columbia, SC 29212

2. He was born in Augusta, Georgia on December 25, 1955. He is presently 38 years old.

4. He was married to Linda Gayle Pooser on May 26, 1984. He has three children: Laura Gayle, age 9; Burton Douglas, age 7; and Rachel Leigh, age 7.

5. Military Service: None

Printed Page 6841 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
6. He attended the University of South Carolina, August, 1974 - May, 1978, Bachelor of Arts (magna cum laude) political science; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, August, 1978 - May, 1981, Juris Doctor.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
During the last five years, he has participated in more than the minimum requirement for CLE hours, as lecturer, author and panelist, as well as an attendant at various seminars. Nearly all of the seminars he has attended or in which he has appeared as a lecturer or panelist has concerned Family Law topics.

9. Taught or Lectured:
Research Coordinator, Family Law CLE, "Alimony," 1982
Research Coordinator; Seminars for New Family Court Judges; 1983, 1985 and 1988
Law School for Nonlawyers - Family Law; Lecturer; February, 1990
1981 Law School Class Reunion CLE Seminar on Ethics; Moderator and lecturer; October, 1991

10. Published Books and Articles:
For each of the seminars in which he appeared as a lecturer or panelist, such as Continuing Legal Education publications for the South Carolina Bar, he prepared an outline or other instruction materials.
Additional Publications:
Outline on Child Custody and Visitation and Outline on Child Support (1983 and updates thereafter) which were presented and are used to instruct new Family Court Judges.
Law School for Nonlawyers - Family Law outline, February, 1990. The sponsoring body was the Young Lawyers Division of the S. C. Bar.
"Ethics in the Domestic Relations Practice," Class of 1981 Reunion CLE Seminar, October, 1991
While affiliated with Harvey Golden, Esquire, he wrote many outlines and other CLE materials for Mr. Golden's lectures over the years for which he was given credit.

Printed Page 6842 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
April, 1982 - August, 1990 Affiliated with the Law Offices of Harvey L. Golden, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina
August, 1990 - Present Sole practitioner with his office located in Lexington, South Carolina, from August, 1990 until January, 1993, when he moved his office near his home in the Irmo-St. Andrews area
His practice has always been limited primarily to domestic relations and matrimonial law, including but not limited to divorce, child custody and visitation, property division, alimony, child support, contempt of court, adoption, abused and neglected children, juvenile delinquents' defense, child abduction, termination of parental rights, service as guardian ad litem for minor children and name changes. Approximately five to ten percent of his practice has involved criminal and other civil litigation and occasionally the preparation of wills and other legal documents.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:He is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell, and he has not sought a rating by that publication.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - two
State - at least three times weekly
Other - once before the Juvenile Probation Board

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 2%
Criminal - 2%
Domestic - 96%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 2%
Non-Jury - 98%
(nearly all of which was in Family Court where there is never a jury, and the Judge is always trier of fact and the law)
He has been chief or sole counsel in nearly all of these cases.

Printed Page 6843 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Donahue v. Donahue, ___ S.C. ___, 384 S.E.2d 741 (1989). This is a well known landmark case in the development of domestic relations law in this state, particularly in the areas of alimony and property apportionment.
(b) Casey v. Casey, ___ S.C. ___, 346 S.E.2d 726 (Ct. App. 1986), rev'd, ___ S.C. ___, 362 S.E.2d 6 (Sup. Ct. 1987). Another well known landmark case. This decision has had a significant impact upon the development of the domestic relations law, particularly in the property apportionment area.
(c) Bradley Ayers v. Jennifer Ayers, Fairfield County Family Court. This ongoing case has generated much publicity. He represents the mother, and DSS is a party, along with both parents. The principal issue concerns whether the parties' young daughters were sexually abused by the father. In August, 1993, his client was incarcerated by a Family Court Judge for contempt of court as she would not turn over the children for visitation. A final hearing is presently pending. The case is significant for the issues involved and because it entails the protection of his client's daughters from some of the worse abuse children suffer. This has been one of the most emotional, contentious and compelling cases of his career.
(d) Robert Koon, et al. v. Robert Bell, M.D., et al., Federal District Court, South Carolina, 1983-1984. He served as guardian ad litem for eight boys who had been mistreated at a State mental institution. All of them had been housed at a Youth Services facility when they were hospitalized for "observation" following discovery of an alleged "suicide impact." The case was settled out of Court, with his clients, the Plaintiffs, receiving money damages. The case is significant as the settlement mandated adoption of sorely needed reforms by the Department of Youth Services and the Department of Mental Health.
(e) State v. Goodwin, et al., Richland County Family Court and General Sessions Court, 1984-1985. (See In Re Goodwin, 333 S.E.2d 337 (1985).) Juvenile twin brothers were charged for murdering their mother. He served as court-appointed attorney for Willie. For his career this was a very significant case. He represented Willie throughout the Family Court
Printed Page 6844 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
proceedings and continued on as the case moved to General Sessions where the boys were tried as adults. He was present when Willie was evaluated for his fitness to stand trial, and he met with him many times to confer and to console him. When the Circuit Judge was about to sentence Willie, he pled on Willie's behalf. This case presented many complicated legal issues:for examples, voluntariness of the "confessions"; the concept of "friendly adult" during juvenile interrogations; and sufficiency of evidence. Unlike most court-appointed attorneys in the Family Court, he requested to and was able to stay with this case every step of the way from the initial detention hearing in Family Court through the trial and sentencing in General Sessions Court.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) In Re Goodwin, ___ S.C. ___, 333 S.E.2d 337 (1985).
(b) Casey v. Casey, ___ S.C. ___, 346 S.E.2d 726 (Ct. App. 1986), rev'd, ___ S.C. ___, 362 S.E.2d 6 (Sup. Ct. 1987).
(c) Haas v. Timmons, unreported decision of the Court of Appeals, 1987, in which the Family Court was affirmed.
(d) Donahue v. Donahue, ___ S.C. ___, 384 S.E.2d 741 (1989).
(e) Terry v. Lee, ___ S.C. ___, 419 S.E.2d 213 (1992). NOTE:This case was filed in the Family Court in 1992, after the Supreme Court's ruling, has been appealed again, and is scheduled for oral argument during the Court's April, 1994 term.

25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
After admission to the Bar, he has not been engaged in any occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law.

32. Sued: He has been sued twice, both times in Magistrate's Court, by stenographers for payment of deposition transcripts which his clients had failed to pay. He settled both cases out of court soon after being sued, so that no trial was necessary, by paying for the transcripts out of his own pocket.
(1) Charlene Baskin, Plaintiff (Richland County)
Filed: July 25, 1989
Dismissed: October 3, 1989
Amount of Settlement: $294.00 including costs

Printed Page 6845 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
(2) Katie H. Bailey of Hanwell Court Reporting, Plaintiff
Filed: January 21, 1994
Dismissed: March 21, 1994
Amount of Settlement: $580.69 including costs

36. Lodging, Transportation, Entertainment, Food, Meals, Beverages, Money or Any Other Thing of Value From a Lobbyist or Lobbyist Principal:
He has not received anything of value from any lobbyist in his or her capacity as a lobbyist. As an attorney, he has represented lobbyists only in their private, personal legal affairs which had nothing to do with their employment as lobbyists. These individuals paid him for his legal services rendered to them in these private, personal legal matters. He has no relationship of any kind with either of these individuals or their principals involving their employment as lobbyists.
Lobbyist: Gregory Kergosien
Service: Legal
Fees Paid to Him: April, 1992 ($120.00); March, 1993 ($156.00)
Lobbyist: Robert Kay
Service: Legal
Fees Paid to Him: May, 1991 ($750.00); June, 1992 ($250.00); May, 1993 ($500.00)

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar (1982 to present); S. C. Bar Pro Bono Program; Family Law Section, S. C. Bar (1982 to present); Lexington County Bar (1990 to present); Richland County Bar (1983 to present)

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Phi Beta Kappa; Omicron Delta Kappa; Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity; USC Alumni Association; Kiwanis Club of Lexington (Charter member, President); Cub Scout Den Leader; St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Sunday School teacher); Albanian - American National Organization; Harbison West Elementary School Improvement Council; Murraywood Swim and Racquet Club

46. For his entire legal career, he has limited his practice primarily to matrimonial and family law. He has represented people in Family Court from just about every socio-economic status:millionaire, middle class and poor; uneducated and doctors, lawyers and

Printed Page 6846 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
professors; the unemployed. Children frequently are his clients:juveniles charged with all sorts of crimes, even murder; abused and neglected children; and children who are the subject of private custody and visitation disputes. He has handled nearly every type of Family Court case and issue:adoptions; contempt of court; child support determination and collection; alimony; apportionment of marital property; juveniles; abused and neglected children; abducted children; child custody and visitation disputes; post-decree modification matters; antenuptial agreements; preparation of marital settlement agreements; income tax matters; termination of parental rights; health and life insurance concerns; admissibility of taped telephone conversations; paternity; obtaining temporary restraining orders properly, in accordance with the rules of civil procedure; grandparent visitation; attorney fees; post-trial motions; appeals; disqualification of counsel for conflict of interest; and many other disputes and issues.
In addition to his very concentrated domestic relations practice, he has also been very interested in substantive and procedural law in Family Court matters and has extensive experience as a lecturer in continuing legal education programs. Other attorneys frequently consult him for his opinion and advice on their cases.
Beginning with his admission to the Bar, he has readily represented indigents, almost always for no fee. Some of these cases have been complicated and protracted, involving child custody, paternity, debt allocation, and juvenile defense. Every since its inception, he has been very active in the Bar's Pro Bono Program.
He is not seeking this position as a "stepping stone" to some other "higher" Court. He simply wants to serve as a Family Court Judge. This has been his goal for quite some time. He is prepared and willing to serve. Fortunately, he has worked independently as a sole practitioner for nearly four years and is politically beholden to no one. His candidacy is based solely on merit.

47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Raymond S. Caughman, Chairman and CEO
Lexington State Bank
P. O. Box 8, Lexington, SC 29071-0008
359-5111

Printed Page 6847 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
(b) The Reverend Robert C. Wisnewski, Jr.
St. Mary's Episcopal Church
115 Tram Road, Columbia, SC 29210
798-2776
(c) Harvey L. Golden, Esquire
1712-1714 Main Street, Columbia, SC 29201
779-3700
(d) John Arnold, M.Ed.
CEAP, LMFT, LPC, NCAC II
Vice President for Program Operations
First Sun EAP Alliance, Inc.
P. O. Box 11408, Columbia, SC 29211
376-2668
(e) Stephen A. Spitz, Esquire
225 Hampton's Grant Court, Columbia, SC 29209
783-8863

The Board of Grievances Discipline reports that no formal complaints have ever been filed against you. Records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, the Lexington/Richland County Sheriff's Office are negative; Columbia/Lexington City Police Departments are negative; SLED and FBI records are negative. The Judgement Rolls of Richland and Lexington County are negative. Federal court records are negative. No complaints or statements have been received. No witnesses are present to testify and nothing else has been received, correct?
MS. MCNAMEE: No, sir. Nothing else.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I turn you over to Ms. McNamee for some questioning.
MR. KOTTI: Okay, Senator. Thank you.
MR. KOTTI- EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Good afternoon --
A. Good afternoon.
Q. -- Mr. Kotti?
A. Good to see you, ma'am.
Q. It's good to see you, too. Mr. Kotti, you probably have the most experience according to your questionnaire of anyone we have interviewed this afternoon. You say you have 96 percent of your practice --
A. Actually, it's about 98 percent. It's a hair --
Q. 98 percent?
A. -- under a hundred percent really throughout my career. That's correct.

Printed Page 6848 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
Q. Is in the family law?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Does this qualify you almost to be a family law specialist in any way?
A. If we can use the term specialist. Of course, we cannot as we all know. I wish the Supreme Court would let us. I concentrate my practice in family law and always have since I was admitted some 11, 12 years ago.
Q. Are you a member -- some members of the Bar are members of the Association of Matrimonial Lawyers, that's a national organization?
A. That's a national -- it's creme de la creme. I've never applied for membership in that group. Frankly, I've always felt that that was a group that catered towards well asseted people -- am I saying that right -- people who are wealthier than -- I represent all economic strata, every level. And I've never sought membership in that group. I probably should.

Of course, over the years, of course, I've practiced law with Harvey Golden for nine years who is one of the prominent members nationally in that association. Ken Lester is. He's associated with Mr. Golden. A lot of my friends and a lot of opponents are, regular opponents, I might add, are members of the AAML, but I am not.
Q. For four years you have been a solo practitioner; is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. How -- can you characterize what it's like to be a solo practitioner for us? We've heard one version of it and I'd like to hear yours.
A. Sure. It's very hectic. I've had to adopt my work habits to the demands of a father because I'm an involved father. I can say that with impunity. My wife is sitting right there. I wouldn't say it if weren't true and she was sitting there. And we have three children and I'm involved in their activities rather directly, almost daily.

I've purposely moved my office about a year and a half ago to within a mile of my home to give me shorter traveling, commuting time to work. And I now have changed my work habits. They're kind of similar to Jake -- what's his name? The guy in the book, A Time to Kill, if you've read it. It's one of John Grisham's. It's probably his best book.

What I do is I frequently go to work at 5:00 in the morning and then -- I just roll out of bed and drive on over to the office and wake up there and then work for a couple, three hours, go home and shower, take my children to school and then go back to work. That's pretty much what I usually do and I usually work until, oh, Lord, usually 8:00 o'clock every night. Last night I had to go back and work until midnight which is all too frequent, I'm afraid. But that's what you have to do.

Printed Page 6849 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
Also I work seven days a week. I reserve Saturday mornings for office work from about 9:00 o'clock to about noon or 1:00. Sundays, I work between church and Cub Scouts for a couple of hours usually and then I have to go back -- if I have a trial the next day like I did yesterday, I go back to work at 6:00, 7:00 o'clock at night when my kids' homework has been done and then I do more work and then come home whenever and go to bed.

That's basically how I live and I think that's probably a common experience for most solo practitioners. It's a very hectic way to make a living, but I kind of enjoy the excitement. There is never a dull moment, that's for sure.
Q. Being a solo practitioner and being a father of young children sounds like a double whammy.
A. I wouldn't have it any other way, actually, unless I got elected to the bench, then it would be a little bit different.
Q. Well, would that change this routine of yours in any way?
A. The only thing I think I would change is I wouldn't go to work at 5:00 in the morning. I'd go to work about 8:00. I don't believe that it's fair to litigants and attorneys and to court reporters, people forget about them, and the witness to hold court until midnight or 11:00 o'clock at night. I'll try not to do that.

I've been -- I've tried cases where I've been kept in court until 2:00 in the morning before and by about 10:00 everybody is so punchy, the Rules of Evidence have been completely thrown out the window, all decorum had been lost and I think the system suffered a little bit at that hour those particular times I had to do that, so I would never -- I would avoid holding court -- I can't say never. I would avoid holding court certainly beyond 6:00 or 7:00 in the evening and that would be only in the rarest of circumstances hopefully.
Q. Would you just tell us is it difficult as a solo practitioner to meet those deadlines? Have you -- and I asked the other gentleman this, too. Is it often that you find yourself in a tight spot because of being a solo practitioner and finding these deadlines coming up on you?
A. Sure. This is what I've had to do.
Q. What happens?
A. I've had to adjust my skills such as they are as a typist to compensate that. When I went out on my own in 1990, I learned Word Perfect. I bought an extra computer. I bought a lap top computer. I have a computer everywhere I go just about and have learned how to two finger type my way through a lot of my documents. Last night, for example, I typed a Motion to Reconsider which had very few spelling errors, I'm

Printed Page 6850 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
happy to report, but Word Perfect makes it a lot easier. That's what I've had to do.

| Printed Page 6830, May 17 | Printed Page 6850, May 17 |
Page Finder Index