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 6860, May 17
| Printed Page 6880, May 17
|
Printed Page 6870 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
Q. Uh-huh.
A. Most of the judges that I appeared before did some type of equitable
distribution. And, of course, we always asked for equitable distribution of
marital assets.
Q. Then, have you done any work with the division of retirement plans?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. How much experience have you had handling cases involving child custody?
A. Well, in those 13 years that I practiced, I would say probably at least fully
half of them would involve custody in some -- they involve children and custody
of children.
Q. Were these usually contested divorces?
A. Normally, yes, ma'am, at that -- especially with -- if custody was involved,
of course, it was contested.
Q. Are you familiar with the DSS child support guidelines?
A. I'm not real familiar now. I mean, I'm familiar with them, but not enough
to tell you that I can sit here and talk to you and talk to you intelligently
about them, no, ma'am.
Q. When you were in practice, private practice, did you handle termination of
parental rights cases?
A. Some.
Q. Or any cases of -- involving the removal of children from the home?
A. I've handled some in termination of a parental rights.
Q. And what is your experience in handling matters of juvenile delinquency?
Could you go into the two years when you were defending juveniles?
A. Those were, of course, not only criminal offenses that were charged, I also
represented juveniles charged with status offenses, but they were involved, you
know, working up the whole defense of the juvenile whether it was a status
offense or whether it was a criminal matter and, of course, we represented a
good many because the juveniles were considered to be indigent.
Very -- very few were either -- some would retain private lawyers and
occasionally the judge would appoint or tell the parents that they needed to
hire a private attorney for their child. But we considered the juvenile as
being the client and those being indigent, so we represented, I guess, the
majority of juvenile cases that came up in Family Court.
Q. What is your experience with child abuse and neglect cases?
A. Now, that would go more, I guess, into my criminal practice. Of course, I
have been exposed to that over -- and on a regular basis, I've had to deal with
child abuse cases from the defense standpoint. I never
Printed Page 6871 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
prosecuted. But I have had to do deal with them from the defense standpoint
even -- and deal with some now in the -- in my capacity as a public
defender.
Q. In the past few years when you have taken CLE's, have you taken CLE's about
domestic law or family law? Do you have credits in that, in those areas?
A. I've taken -- most of my CLE's have been through the Trial Lawyers, which is
about all areas and it covers all areas, criminal law, domestic, some
administrative law. It's just a general hodge podge of fields.
Q. And if they offered a selection of seminars, three-hour seminars involving
family law or criminal law or environmental law, did you go to the family law
ones?
A. I would -- I have gone to some family law to try to keep up with family law.
The -- fortunately, during the Trial Lawyers, the criminal law would be on the
agenda first and then the others did not conflict with them. They would have
something, administrative law, usually at the same time that they had the
criminal matters, so it was usually not any conflict between the domestic
seminars and criminal.
Q. So you -- does that mean that you've been to the -- attended the
seminars?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Would you go through briefly your community activities in your community?
You mentioned some associations that you belong to, Elks. Are you active in
these associations?
A. Not as active as I have -- as I have been. I guess as we all get older,
we're not as active in organizations as we were. Yes, ma'am. I am an active
member of the Elks Club. I go to the Elks Club not frequently, but, of course,
I am a Mason.
And I was active with the Shrine for many years and have not been in
recent years, but other than that, most of my time is spent with my family. I
have a couple of grandchildren that I spend as much time with as possible.
Q. Do these activities involve actively your participation with children in the
community?
A. Nothing other than the Shrine. Of course, the Shrine was
-- is child oriented and it's for crippled and burned children. And that's what
they do.
It's always been something that's been dear to my heart are children
and I guess that -- maybe that's the reason I spend as much time with my
grandchildren as I can. I spent as much time with my own
Printed Page 6872 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
growing up until they got to the point to where they didn't want to spend time
with me as --
Q. That always --
A. -- teenagers do.
Q. That always happens.
A. But now I spend as much time as possible with my grandchildren.
Q. You have been screened three times or so for Circuit Court judge and I would
like to you ask what your strong interest is in being a Family Court judge at
this point?
A. I guess maybe just what you alluded to awhile ago about representing
juveniles, that I have a very strong interest in children and in families. I
think probably that is our biggest root problem today is the family unit is
sliding by the wayside and it appears from what I see every day and I used to
tell people that I had juveniles that I now represent in General Sessions court
that have graduated. Somewhere along the line, somebody has failed them, those
children, and I think that is my biggest input.
I can see my grandchild now and I know what he's got to have. And I
say he because he lives with me, and he is going to have to have guidance and I
think that's something that is sorely lacking through our society today for
whatever reason. I don't have all the answers. I don't -- in fact, I wish I
did.
I have, as I say, a great interest in kids and particularly kids and
old folks are, I guess, are my weaknesses because they're pretty much at the
mercy of everyone else.
Q. Could you tell the committee what your impressions are of the Family Court
system and the way that it can deal with juvenile problems? What would you hope
to contribute as a Family Court judge?
A. I think probably the biggest thing that Family Court can do now is to try to
look at juveniles as having a problem, not as just being mean and needing to be
incarcerated. There needs to be something to help these children because they
are children and they do not have the discretion as adults have. A lot of
choices, I think they -- well, most of them, they're not equipped to make the
choices that they're faced with.
Things, I guess, are a whole lot more complicated than when I was
growing up and you were growing up. Kids are bombarded by so many different
things now that it's -- I would say that compassion, guidance for those children
when they're not getting any at home.
Q. What would you offer as a, I guess, sentence for a -- or a treatment plan for
someone who came to you who you felt was lacking this guidance? Let's just say
it was a status offense.
Printed Page 6873 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
A. I think all of those when you get at it, and I recall one particular juvenile
that I represented that was about -- a 13-year-old female who was obese. The
reason that she would not go to school is because of kids making fun of her.
That went before Judge Lane.
And I think he handled it pretty well and later in talking with that
child, she had changed her attitude a great deal because of what he had said on
the bench and he kind of made fun of his -- she had mentioned that she didn't
like to do to school because the kids made fun of her being obese and he said,
"Well, that's nothing. People -- you know, I've got a big nose." And
he kind of put it down on her level, something that she could understand without
-- I mean he was firm, but he was down to where she could understand what he was
talking about. That he was sitting up there talking with her. She could do
whatever she wanted to, and it was more her perception of herself rather than
other people's perception of it. I think that's -- to approach things that way
rather than trying to treat juveniles as adults and have them judged by adult
standards on status offenses. Kids see things in different ways.
Q. What about the violent, very violent juvenile --
A. I think again -- I think the violence goes back to the lack of supervision at
home more than anything else. That's what I have seen in my handling of juvenile
cases that the kids were not that hard to reach. It was the parents that were
hard to reach because they had a mind-set that either I can't do anything with
him, you know, mainly because they haven't tried or my child can do no wrong, I
don't care what you say. There was either one way or the other.
And I think that's a lot of what perpetuates the violence, that kids
are left to their own devices to make decisions about things that they don't
have any expertise in making decisions about. They don't think about the
consequences of their actions. And there is nobody that's telling them what the
consequences of their actions are.
Q. Would you then be treating the entire family or --
A. I think --
Q. -- handing down some recommendations that involve them in that?
A. I think in certain cases that would certainly be appropriate and I realize --
and I have had clients to where it was really a juvenile could not be handled.
They just would not do any way no matter what anyone tried to do for them. But
I think there are some cases where it would be appropriate that there should be
a lot more family counseling or family involvement. I don't think you'll ever
change it until the family wants to change it. It's kind of like an alcoholic
or a drug addict, until that person
Printed Page 6874 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
wants to change and wants to help themselves, I don't know if there is a great
deal you can do.
You can put it there, but whether they take advantage of it or not,
it's -- it's kind of like going from high school to college. If you recall you
were kind of spoon-fed in high school and they pushed you to do it and
threatened and cajoled and everything else. When you get into college, they say
there it is, if you want it, get it. If you don't, I'm going to be paid anyway.
So it's kind of a shock to a lot of people going from high school to
college.
Q. Mr. Dillard, I think you touched on this a bit, but let's go back to it.
What do you think are the qualities that make up a good Family Court judge?
What kind of temperament does a good Family Court judge need to have?
A. I think say an even one. Like I say, even temperament, open-mind, certainly
compassionate. You're dealing with the most volatile, the most important thing
in people's lives, their family, their property. And I think it takes an even
keel in order -- you're never going to make everybody happy. Probably 90 percent
of the time, you're not going to make anybody happy, but it's not a happy
situation to have to do things like that, dissolve marriages, change custody,
terminate parental rights. But I think it requires an even temperament, some
compassion and generally open-minded about --
Q. Which of these is your strongest quality?
A. I think probably open-minded. I think I'm -- and temperament. I'm not prone
to get real angry. In fact, my wife says I don't get angry about things that I
should, that I take -- and she often says that my brother and I are a lot alike,
we're always trying to find the good in everybody instead of the bad. And I
have a tendency to do that. Let things slide that other people would get real
outraged about.
Q. And which of those qualities would you need to work on the most to be a good
family court judge?
A. Probably in some cases compassion. There is -- there are some things that --
as you mentioned child abuse and things like that I've seen so much of, that
it's hard for me at times to represent the defendant charged with these when the
evidence is pretty much that they have committed what they are charged with and
it's hard for me to have to summon up compassion for that. I had one -- I have
compassion, more compassion, for the victims who are innocent, cannot help
themselves. As I said, they're helpless.
Printed Page 6875 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
Q. Could you please describe your work habits? Describe a workday, if you
want.
A. Well, right at the present time, I'm -- of course, I work in the Seventh
Circuit and we have court just about every week, so it's constantly from 8:30 in
the office until court breaks down, preparing cases, preparing pleas, talking
with clients. It's pretty much constant. You don't have a whole lot of leisure
time. Right now we have two weeks off, but that is a rarity with our docket the
way it is now.
Q. Are you mainly stationed in Union or do you work in Spartanburg?
A. No, I work in the Public Defender's office in Spartanburg.
Q. Spartanburg. So it's mostly Spartanburg as opposed to Cherokee?
A. It's strictly Spartanburg. I work for Spartanburg County. I live in Union
County, but I work for Spartanburg.
Q. I understand that you -- from your questionnaire, that you are seeking -- or
you are qualified to be a federal court -- federal ALJ?
A. That --
Q. Is anything happening with that? Are you actively seeking --
A. No, ma'am. That came up before -- they sent out another offer for renewal
and I did not pursue that. After that you have to renew every two years, I
believe it is, or something.
And the way they were going to do it, you had to go back through the
whole written test. Everything. You know, just de novo so to speak and I just
decided not to do that. To -- I would not be on the register now, I'm sure.
Q. And when you were on the register, you did not really serve as one?
A. No, ma'am. They qualify you and put you on a register and, of course, those
positions are so limited that there -- it's just when something comes up and it
would be where you were on the register --
Q. Okay.
A. -- at that particular time.
Q. What was your Martindale-Hubbell rating?
A. The last that I was rated was CV.
Q. And what does that mean in your mind?
A. Ma'am?
Q. In your -- how do you evaluate that rating?
A. Oh, I don't know. Well, I mean, I don't -- I've never really understood
Martindale-Hubbell ratings, to tell you the truth. They used to have a
period of practice before you could get any rating and then another period
before you could be rated a notch on up and I think they did away with that, but
there is -- supposedly, they rate you on legal ability and then ethical
considerations and things of that sort.
Printed Page 6876 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
I don't know often -- when I was in private practice I would get questionnaires
from Martindale wanting me to rate other lawyers, but I haven't done that
in years and I don't know that -- I may not even be listed in Martindale at the
present time. I'm not sure.
Q. How you will go about if you are elected making the decision in your case?
Will you ask for proposed orders from each side? Will you write your own
orders? What will be your practice?
A. I don't -- well, I think time constraints would prohibit drawing your own
orders except in maybe some unique type of case. Normally, make a ruling and
ask the prevailing party, I guess if you want to put it that way, to draw a
proposed order and make sure that it coincides with what the ruling was, what
the order really was. If it is a complex -- that could go either way maybe, ask
for proposed orders from both parties. But I think that time constraints would
prohibit drawing your own orders and drawing each and every one of our own
orders.
Q. If you asked a party to draw an order for you, would you ask them to share it
with the other side before submitting it to you?
A. I think that any proposed order that would be requested by me, both parties
would have -- should have an opportunity to see it before I sign it.
Q. Have you ever been found in contempt or sanctioned by any court that you
appeared before?
A. No, ma'am. Not to my knowledge.
Q. What do you believe constitutes ex parte communications?
A. I think it would be anything that would touch upon a pending case or a case
that might be coming up, in particular, facts about a case, not general law
discussions but, you know, a particular fact situation. Anything touching that,
I think, would be ex parte unless it was qualifying something particular maybe
that didn't -- that one attorney did not understand exactly what you said. This
is, as I said, in drawing a proposed orders or drawing an order upon your own
oral ruling, maybe the person who is going to draw the order did not understand
one particular point of what you ruled. And they ask about that, I don't think
that would be -- I guess in the strictest sense it would be ex parte, but, I
mean, I don't think there would be any problem with explaining exactly what you
mean.
Q. Has there ever been an occasion when you have engaged in ex parte
communication with a judge, say, in family court?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. What is your standard for recusal if you were a judge?
A. It would be anything that I would have knowledge of the parties, maybe some
type of relationship, maybe a former client, something of that
Printed Page 6877 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
nature or I knew the parties personally, or knew one of the parties personally.
Something like that.
Q. Would you automatically recuse yourself?
A. I think I would. Well, if it came down to close personal acquaintances, yes,
ma'am. I think I would in that situation. If it were just people that I knew or
had represented in the past and knew I had represented in the past, of course, I
would make the lawyers aware of that fact and, you know, if they wanted somebody
else to hear it, that would be fine.
As I said, I don't -- I would not be biased, but that would be -- I
would not want any appearance that I were biased one way or the other.
Q. And to talk a bit about your philosophy about gifts versus social
hospitality, how do you distinguish between the two and how does that affect
you? What is your philosophy to that as it relates to the Judicial Canons?
A. My philosophy?
Q. Yes. Your understanding of it.
A. Well, maybe I'm not quite understanding. Would you repeat that because I'm
not sure I understand exactly what --
Q. Well, there are several aspects to it. You finish up a case and the lawyers
say, "Judge, let's go to lunch," or
"Judge, there is a good movie and I'll treat you to it," and I'm just
thinking, would you go to a movie, something like that?
A. Well, of course, my policy has always been pay my own way as far as anything
like that goes. Inevitably over time, you form friendships among the Bar. I'm
not sure it's realistic to think that you can just totally ignore, you know,
those friendships or associates as long as it is there and you're personal
friends and not just lawyer comes in from out of town and is going to curry a
favor with the judge, then, no, I mean I don't see that.
But it was -- all of the lawyers in this particular race are friends.
Have been for years. I do not see anything wrong with sitting down and drinking
a cup of coffee with them as long as you don't discuss any cases that are -- and
I think they're aware of that. I think they would be aware of that, too. It
would be strictly on a personal basis and not for any type of ex parte
communication. I don't think you can cut yourself off entirely from the Bar
because that -- you know, that's mainly where your friends are.
Q. Do you have any bright line tests if you had some -- if they had some case
before you?
A. I think if it was a pending case and a case going on and it had not been
ruled on, then I think all -- at that particular point, all social contact
Printed Page 6878 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
would -- any social contact really would be inappropriate as showing --
providing an appearance of maybe that there might be some impropriety. But once
a ruling is made, you're back to square one as far as I'm concerned and you
know, you're -- just friends among the Bar, one sits on the bench and one
practices before that Bar.
Q. Mr. Dillard, have you sought the pledge of any legislator for this seat?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Either directly or indirectly?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Do you know of anyone soliciting pledges on your behalf --
A. No.
Q. -- in this --
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. In what ways have you sought this office of Family Court judge?
A. Well, mainly, what I have done is contacted legislators, tell them who I am
and what I'm running for, that I'm interested in it and try to preface, you
know, this is all I can do now. I have a bio sheet that I have handed out to
some. And that's about it. Just basically mingling among and speaking to as
many legislators as possible.
Q. We do not show that you have spent any money on this race; is that correct?
If you have, would you -- if you have, would you please notice Ms. --
A. Nothing other than spending money for gas riding from Union down to the
legislature.
Q. Travel is not counted.
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. But when you do, will you please notify Ms. Satterwhite and file the
appropriate letter. Thank you. That's all I have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a couple of questions, one, I note you were town
attorney for the town of Whitmire from 1981 -- I'm sorry, you were town judge
for the town of Whitmire from 1981 to 1986?
A. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: What was the circumstance under which you left as town judge?
A. When I went to work at Spartanburg at the Public Defender's Office, they felt
like they wanted somebody closer who would be near at hand to issue warrants or
whatever they need.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was it something you wished to continue to do and they just --
they told you they'd rather have somebody who was closer at hand? Or was it a
voluntary -- was it a mutual agreement?
Printed Page 6879 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17,
1994
A. It really would -- at the time that I went to work at Spartanburg, it became
a chore for me because I had to go
-- I had to hold court, you know, once a week. I'd have to drive back to hold
court at least one night week or write up tickets or whatever. And it's kind of
mutual thing. They --
THE CHAIRMAN: So they didn't fire you?
A. No. Uh-huh.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
A. It was just mutually, and, like I say, they felt like -- and I didn't really
argue to stay because it was getting to be kind of a hassle for me trying to do
both things.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did they replace you with another lawyer or was it a layman?
A. I'm not really sure. I believe it was a layman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you about the CV in Martindale-Hubbell, too. My
understanding of Martindale-Hubbell is it is a peer review process where
they consult with your brethren at the Bar and ask them their general opinion,
and to be candid with you, my understanding, a CV has always been that your
colleagues rate you as below average. Is that -- did you ever challenge that
rating of you or do you know when it was administered by the
Martindale-Hubbell Group?
A. No, sir. As I say, I'm not -- I don't even know whether I'm listed in
Martindale-Hubbell now.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Do you quarrel with my assessment that that's what CV
means or what C means, or do you have any knowledge of the
Martindale-Hubbell rating system?
A. I don't -- other than what the front of Martindale-Hubbell says, I don't
really have any knowledge of it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you recall what it says in the front of that?
A. Well, I think as I told her that the -- the first letter was supposed to be
legal ability and the next was the ethical --
THE CHAIRMAN: The V is the ethics; C is the legal ability. I think that's
correct. All right.
A. I couldn't tell you when that last -- that rating was and --
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. You have not requested a review of that rating by
Martindale?
A. No, sir, because, like I say, for the last -- last eight years, I've been in
the public sector and --
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
A. -- not really been concerned about that rating because I was not out in
private practice.
| Printed Page 6860, May 17
| Printed Page 6880, May 17
|
Page Finder Index