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 6950, May 17 | Printed Page 6970, May 17 |
Printed Page 6960 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
(d) Matter of Dobson, 427 S.E.2d 166 (1993). An attorney grievance case in which the S. C. Supreme Court found misconduct and rejected arguments for a statute of limitations in attorney grievance cases.
(e) Matter of Rollins, 281 S.C. 467. An attorney grievance case in which the S. C. Supreme Court reaffirmed that conduct which does not involve actual practice of law is subject to scrutiny and discipline.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Matter of Johnson, S. C. Supreme Court (see, #17a).
(b) Matter of Bruner, S. C. Supreme Court (attorney grievance case), 283 S.C. 114 (1984).
(c) Matter of Dobson, S. C. Supreme Court (see #17d), 427 S.E.2d 166 (1993).
(d) State of S. C. ex rel McLeod v. Coates, et al., S. C. Court of Appeals, 281 S.C. 86.
(e) Hayden v. State of S.C., S. C. Supreme Court, 278 S.C. 610 (1983).

25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
None he graduated from law school in 1977.

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
He is a member of the South Carolina Bar.

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
He is an active member of Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church. He has held the office, member of Parish Council, for a two-year term, serving as Secretary and Vice-Chairman.

46. He has practiced law for almost 17 years. During that time he has handled cases in all 16 judicial circuits of our state. He has handled jury and non-jury cases. He has briefed and argued cases before the S. C. Supreme Court, the S. C. Court of Appeals and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He has also represented state agencies in administrative matters, including contested cases. He has conducted extradition hearings for the state.

Printed Page 6961 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
For the past several years he has handled many cases on behalf of the Board of Commissioners on Attorney Grievances and Discipline. He has presented the cases to the hearing panels and has briefed and argued the cases before the S. C. Supreme Court.
During the past six years he has handled a number of cases on behalf of the S. C. Judicial Standards Commission. He has prosecuted Judicial Standards cases before the Commission and the S. C. Supreme Court. Additionally, he has taught courses on the subject of the Code of Judicial Conduct and has recently taught the subject of "Judicial Ethics" to the judges attending the course given by the Board of Magistrate Certification.

47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Dru H. Carter, Branch Manager
State Credit Union, Main Street Office
Columbia, SC 29201
343-0300
(b) Charles H. Richardson
365 Big Timber Drive, Lexington, SC
734-3685
(c) Scott Elliott, Esquire
P. O. Box 1960, Columbia, SC 29202
771-0555
(d) Donald J. Zelenka
P. O. Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211
781-0185
(e) James G. Bogle, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
6523 Olde Knight Parkway, Columbia, SC 29209

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies:Richland County Sheriff's Office are negative; Columbia City Police Department are negative; SLED and FBI records are negative. The Judgment Rolls of Richland County are negative. Federal court records are negative. No complaints or statements were received. No witnesses are present to testify. Would you like to make a statement before we proceed?
MR. MOORE: No thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Okay, Sue.
MS. MCNAMEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Printed Page 6962 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
MR. MOORE - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Hello, Mr. Moore.
A. Thank you, how are you?
Q. As with the other candidates, we would like to incorporate your last screening testimony in the record --
A. Certainly.
Q. -- at this point. Thank you. And in reviewing the testimony from last time, I would like to ask you a few questions that I don't think I asked you sufficiently before.
A. Okay.
Q. We'd like to ask you about your philosophy on recusal as you understand it.
A. My philosophy on recusal is, number one, I think it's discussed and there are some specific rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct on recusal, but I got some advice one time from a judge who I respect a lot and even if it's not covered in the Code of Judicial conduct as a very specific matter, I think his advice was if it causes you to hesitate, if you have to think about it, then you ought to recuse yourself. And it's that simple, and that would be my philosophy.

I'm sure that there are plenty of other cases to be heard and so my philosophy would generally be, one, if it's covered by the Code of Judicial Conduct, absolutely. Also even if it's not covered, but if it causes you to hesitate, that's grounds enough to recuse yourself.
Q. Would you automatically recuse yourself at that point or bring it up as a motion on your part?
A. My tendency would be to automatically recuse myself.
Q. The question of gifts and your understanding of that in the Judicial Canons?
A. I think that judges ought not to accept gifts, period.
Q. What is your definition of a gift?
A. Anything of value, and that includes lunch, dinner. It includes anything. I don't think judges ought to go to lunch with lawyers or people who may be appearing before them and I just think it's a bad practice. And I think it creates a terrible appearance on the public who see it. Even in the circumstances where nothing is intended by the buying of lunch, I still think it looks bad and I would not do it.
Q. Thank you. And finally a question that I feel I need to get a little more information on and that's ex parte communication?
A. Okay. I think the rule is simple on that, too. You don't do it. You don't do it with lawyers because they're prohibited from doing it, but the Code of Judicial Conduct also prohibits judges from doing it. And that

Printed Page 6963 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
means from not only lawyers, but also litigants who are not represented by lawyers. And as an Administrative Law judge, I assume they're going to be a number of those. I think you've got to handle that diplomatically and courteously, but on the other hand, I think you've got to very firmly advise those individuals that you are prohibited, it's improper for you to talk with them and they either need to go get a lawyer or they need to get it resolved otherwise, but you cannot have any communications, any ex parte communications with them.
Q. Thank you. Since your last screening, have there been any changes in your status or anything of that nature that this committee might need to know?
A. No.
Q. It was so short a time ago.
A. Very short time. It seems like only yesterday.
Q. It was the same room, too. Have you sought the pledge of a legislator prior to the completion of this screening process?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Even if that pledge was conditional -- rather the pledge sought was conditional upon you being found qualified by the committee?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Have you asked or otherwise authorized any other person to solicit or seek a pledge of a legislator's vote on your behalf?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. And do you know of any solicitations or pledges?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Have you had anyone say to you something to the effect of, "Well, you didn't win last time, but you got my vote this next round"?
A. No, ma'am, I sure hadn't.
Q. And, finally, Mr. Moore, we show you have filed a statement with the Ethics Committee's legislative -- Ethics Committees of spending slightly over $100; is that correct?
A. For last time, yes, ma'am.
Q. That was for last time?
A. Yes, ma'am. Nothing for this time. I have spent less, way less than $100 this time. That last report was for the last campaign.
Q. Oh, I see. Okay. All right. So if you -- when you do file, or when you do expend some money on this campaign, you'll file with Ms. Satterwhite?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Thank you very much.
A. Thank you.
Printed Page 6964 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: You have a question, Senator?
SENATOR RUSSELL: No, Mr. Chairman.
A. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Thank you, sir, for --
A. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY OF MR. MOORE AT PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 13, 1994:

MR. MOORE - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Mr. Moore, would you please tell the committee the most important thing that everyone here needs to know about you and your candidacy for an administrative law judge?
A. I think the most important thing that you need to know are actually two or three things. Number one is I think I have a broad base of experience that qualifies me for this job. I've been working for sixteen and a half years at the Attorney General's Office, so I obviously don't move from job to job very easily or very quickly.

I've handled cases in all sixteen judicial circuits in the state and I've handled judicial standards matters. I've handled the complex and the mundane. I've been in Magistrate's Court, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, so I think I have a broad -- extraordinarily broad base of experience.

The other thing, I think, is my ability and my understanding of the need to be fair, because I think that's what determines whether or not a judge is a good judge, is whether the person is fair. And I think I have
-- if you talk to people that I've been associated with over the past sixteen and a half years, they will uniformly say, I hope, that Ken Moore is a fair person.
Q. That goes right into my next question. In those sixteen and a half years you've had a chance to observe many judges, and I wondered if you would share with the committee what you thought were the other qualities, aside from being fair and that's most important as I understand your testimony, the other qualities that are very important for a judge and for an administrative law judge?
A. Well, I think the most important thing not only for a judge but I think for just about anybody is to understand
-- you have to understand my general philosophy of life, which is basically treat people like you would like to be treated. That means honestly, sincerely, fairly and with respect and courtesy, and I think those are the

Printed Page 6965 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
hearts of not only a good judge but basically a good legislator or a good person in general.
Q. You have experience most recently, I guess, in criminal -- more experience, let me say, in criminal appeals and the attorney grievance and judicial standards areas. You also say, though, in your PDQ that you represented the state in various other matters in contested cases. Could you give us an example of some of those?
A. Well, several years ago I handled matters for the Board of Penal Services, contested cases before that board. I presently handle matters for the Auctioneers Commission. I'm their AG's representative so I advise them and appear at hearings if they need me to appear. Those are the two agencies that I've had the most contact with.

The Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards and the Attorney Grievance section, those are not purely, I don't think, administrative law related work, but I've done a lot of work for them also.
Q. How will the Auctioneer's Commission use you? What do you do for them?
A. I generally -- I give them legal advice when they need legal advice. If they have a contested hearing I will appear at the hearing to advise the board. I will assist them in drafting orders, preparing final orders. I represent them, of course, on appeal. We have at least one case right now. In fact, I think we have only one case right now. It's on appeal to the Circuit Court and I, of course, will represent them in that proceeding.
Q. What is your understanding of why the Administrative Law Judge Division was established?
A. Well, I think it was established and I believe that the motivation was simply to bring about what I perceive is going to be a substantial improvement in the administrative law system in this state. I think the Administrative Procedures Act itself went a long way to doing that, but I don't think it's complete, that the system would be completely in place until you have professional administrative law judges who are trained in the law to hear these cases. And I think that will substantially improve the administration of that whole system, and I believe that was the motivation.
Q. What is your opinion, your estimation, of the work load of these three administrative law judges?
A. I think for the -- in the beginning, I think it's going to be an enormous work load. I think there are going to be many, many cases that will need to be heard. There are some 40 agencies, occupational licensing boards, that will be affected and I'm certain they must have plenty of cases sitting over there that will be waiting to be heard on March 1st. And I think it's going to be very important, then, for the Legislature

Printed Page 6966 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
to elect people who are well qualified to handle these cases, because I really think it's going to be an enormous work load the first -- initially, especially for the first three people elected. I think it will continue to be, but I think this breaking in period, trying to get it organized, trying to get it up and rolling and actually rolling, I think are going to be an enormous project for the administrative law judges.
Q. What is your understanding of your -- the participation of the administrative law judge in the rule- making proceedings?
A. As I understand it, they'll preside at the hearings, the public hearings at least, on rules. Of course, they have to develop their own rules and regulations for the Administrative Law Division and I assume that those would be -- that will be another thing that the administrative law judges will obviously need to devote themselves to quickly because I think we'll need some rules and regulations in place for the operation of the court itself.
Q. And, though, I was talking, you know, about the hearings that you would be presiding over.
A. Right.
Q. How would you decide the standard of reasonableness and need, how do you expect to go about looking at that?
A. Well, I think you've got to go about it on a case by case basis, obviously. You've got to look at the needs of the agency, what are the needs of the agency. And the reasonable, I think, is -- you know, obviously, if it's arbitrary and capricious on its face, that's an easy case.

Hopefully, agencies won't submit that type of a regulation. So you're going to have to examine them to determine based on the needs of the agency vis-a-vis the needs of the public and the needs of those people that are licensed under those -- for example, under those occupational licensing boards.
Q. Do you see that as an arduous task?
A. Arduous? I think it will be involved. I don't think it will be -- certainly, it wouldn't be anything I couldn't handle. Yeah, it could be arduous. Like, there could be a lot of regulations out there that need to be enacted on behalf of a lot of different agencies, sure.
Q. What would you say has been your most difficult administrative law case experience in life?
A. I'm not sure I can easily identify one. I think they all have had with them some -- if you're talking about purely contested hearings, I suppose that we have one now with the Auctioneer's Commission that involves a simple question of -- although it seems simple on it's face, it's on appeal to the Circuit Court on just the interpretation of the statute itself and it's

Printed Page 6967 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
going to be a question that's going to require some extensive research, I think, to try to reach a position I think that's favorable to the agency. I think they're right and I'm sure that it'll be interesting on appeal.
Q. Could you please describe your method of separating your work as a state employee from your effort at obtaining this position?
A. Well, what I intend to do, of course, is take annual leave, like I did today, whenever I do anything that relates to either appearing at a hearing like this or, for example, I appeared before the Bar the other day, I took annual leave, and I expect I'll certainly continue to do that. I'm committed to do that.
Q. Have you ever been held in contempt?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Or sanctioned by a court for any reason?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Have you ever been the subject of a disciplinary action arising out of your employment?
A. No, ma'am.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the members? Thank you.

END OF PRIOR TESTIMONY OF MR. MOORE.

REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Lynn Wiggins. Would you please come forward. Raise your right hand.
VIRGINIA LYNN WIGGINS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MS. WIGGINS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Is it correct?
MS. WIGGINS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Does anything need clarification?
MS. WIGGINS: No, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Is there any objection to making this Summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony?
MS. WIGGINS: No objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: It shall be done at this point in the transcript.

Printed Page 6968 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Virginia Lynn Wiggins
Home Address: Business Address:
142 A. B. Frye Road 1328 Blanding Street
Lexington, SC 29073 Columbia, SC 29201

2. She was born in Hazelhurst, Mississippi on August 21, 1951. She is presently 42 years old.

4. She was previously divorced on March 28, 1980; Lynn W. Rickenbaker (moving party); Family Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit (Winnsboro); habitual drunkenness (grounds). She was married to Donald Edward Jonas on December 7, 1986. She has no children.

5. Military Service: N/A

6. She attended Midlands Technical College, 1971, A.S.; the University of South Carolina, 1984, B.A.; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, December, 1986, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
1992 19.50 hours - Probate, Torts, and Westlaw training
5.00 hours - Ethics
1991 10.25 hours - Real Estate, Probate
3.00 hours - Ethics
1990 12.00 Hours - Real Estate
1989 11.00 hours - Torts
1988 6.00 hours - Worker's Compensation

9. Taught or Lectured:
Midlands Technical College - Paralegal Division - Wills, Trusts and Estates (approximately 5 semesters)
Columbia Junior College - Center for Paralegal Studies - Wills, Trusts and Estates - Introduction to Law (approximately 3 semesters)

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1987-1990 General Practice, including real estate closing, litigation, probate, Social Security Disability, Worker's Compensation and Family Law

Printed Page 6969 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
1990-1991 Real Estate, Probate, Social Security Disability and Family Law
1991-1994 Probate, Social Security, Family Law and Litigation Support for Partner

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:CV

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 4 to 5
State - 10 to 12
Other - Social Security Administration - 15
Worker's Compensation Commission - 5
Family Court - 20 to 25

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 40%
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 60%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 20%
Non-jury - 80%
Jury - Associate Counsel
Non-Jury - Sole Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Action for termination of parental rights of prisoner and adoption by step-parent. Action was contested by prisoner, who was represented, and involved issue of whether incarceration constituted abandonment under South Carolina law. Prisoner appealed order terminating his rights, which appeal he later abandoned.
(b) Action to overturn adoption proceeding for fraud against Department of Social Services and Children's Unlimited. Issued involved non-disclosure of children's histories and intentional concealment. Case of first impression in South Carolina. Case settled by D.S.S. who agreed to take the children back into the system.

| Printed Page 6950, May 17 | Printed Page 6970, May 17 |
Page Finder Index