| Printed Page 1650, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 1670, Mar. 14 |

10. Miscellaneous:

The Joint Committee received three statements in opposition to Judge Martin's election, nine affidavits in support of Judge Martin's election, and subpoenaed four witnesses to testify. All of the statements and subpoenaed testimony is discussed above.

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Judge Cole was screened on February 8, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

1. Integrity and Impartiality:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Judge Cole's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Judge Cole demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges. On the issue of ex parte communications, Judge Cole testified that ex parte communications are inappropriate and that he does not discuss anything with anyone unless all parties are present.

On the issue of recusal, Judge Cole testified that he wants parties to feel like they are getting a fair hearing, and if one party thinks he is not impartial, he recuses himself. He also testified that, although he could not think of an instance in which he had been offered a gift, he would not accept gifts. Judge Cole testified that he has accepted social hospitality from friends, but has never allowed an attorney to buy him lunch.

Judge Cole testified that he would not hear a matter in which he or his spouse held a de minimis financial interest.

Judge Cole testified that the three attorneys who wrote letters of reference on his behalf do not practice before him.

The input the Joint Committee received from its survey and from the Bar indicated that Judge Cole is intelligent and knowledgeable. He has complied with all continuing judicial education requirements.

Judge Cole's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was 2.0 out of 4 possible points. He was very familiar with the type of damages recoverable without a hearing in a default judgment, when a witness may testify outside of the defendant's presence, and Allen charges. He was also familiar with when jeopardy attaches and the admissibility of expert testimony. He was somewhat familiar with the standard of review in an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission, but did not know whether it is a necessary prerequisite for the admission of scientific evidence that the theory and general technique be generally accepted in the scientific community.

In response to the Chairman's questions about separation of powers and the role of the judiciary, Judge Cole testified that a circuit court should not order the General Assembly to expend or appropriate funds. He also testified that the death penalty is constitutional, but Judge Cole indicated that he has not had an opportunity to expose himself to alternative dispute resolution and was not familiar with the political abstention doctrine.

3. Professional Experience:

Judge Cole has been a circuit court judge since 1992. He enjoyed a general practice of civil and criminal law from 1985 to 1992, and was an assistant circuit solicitor from 1977 to 1984.

4. Judicial Temperament:

The input the Joint Committee received from its surveys and from the Bar indicated that Judge Cole's temperament is excellent.

5. Diligence and Industry:

Judge Cole was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee did receive input in the form of anonymous survey responses that he was not as prompt as he should be in issuing orders. Judge Cole responded to this criticism by saying that when he was first elected to the bench he was assigned a long stretch of nonjury cases in a large district. He testified that he was scheduled to hear things that were supposed to last fifteen minutes and instead lasted thirty to forty-five minutes. He was without a law clerk at the time and he fell behind. Judge Cole testified that he believes it is very important to be prompt and that he attempts to dispose of matters within thirty days.

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Cole appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

7. Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cole has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

Judge Cole has served on the bench since 1992. He was a member of the House of Representatives from 1987 to 1992.

9. Ethics:

Judge Cole testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Cole also testified that he understood the new Joint Committee rule requiring him to wait forty-eight hours after the draft report is released before he may begin seeking commitments.

Judge Cole testified that he has not spent any money on his re-election and is therefore not required to file campaign expenditure statements with the House or Senate Ethics Committees.

10. Miscellaneous:

The Joint Committee did not receive any complaints or statements in opposition to Judge Cole's election.

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Judge Kinard was screened on February 1, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Judge Kinard's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Judge Kinard demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges.

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The input the Joint Committee received from its survey and from the Bar indicated that Judge Kinard is intelligent and knowledgeable. He has complied with all continuing judicial education requirements.

Judge Kinard was a member of the Wig and Robe while at the University of South Carolina Law School.

His last Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV, their highest rating.

Judge Kinard's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was a 3.5 which was the second highest score of all judicial candidates currently running for office. Judge Kinard answered all the questions very well and demonstrated a thorough understanding of damages in a default judgment, when a witness may testify out of the defendant's presence, Allen charges, and the admissibility of expert testimony.

Judge Kinard headed up the first settlement week sponsored in Richland County and has participated in alternative dispute resolution efforts.

3. Professional Experience:

Judge Kinard has been a circuit court judge since 1988. He practiced law, handling mostly civil matters which included corporate, real estate, and bankruptcy cases as well as general litigation, for twenty-two years before his election to the bench.

4. Judicial Temperament:

The input the Joint Committee received from its surveys and from the Bar indicate that Judge Kinard's temperament is excellent.

5. Diligence and Industry:

Judge Kinard was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry. He testified that he plans to serve the full term if elected and has no plans to return to private practice.

Judge Kinard appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of his office.

7. Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kinard has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

Judge Kinard has served on the bench since 1986.

9. Ethics:

Judge Kinard testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening; or
(b) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Kinard also testified that he understood the new Joint Committee rule requiring him to wait forty-eight hours after the draft report is released before he may begin seeking commitments.

10. Miscellaneous:

The Joint Committee did not receive any complaints or statements in opposition to Judge Kinard's election.

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Mr. Stevens was screened on February 8, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

1. Integrity and Impartiality:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Mr. Stevens's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Mr. Stevens demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges. On the

On the issue of recusal, Mr. Stevens testified that he would tend to recuse himself in cases where a party requests his recusal unless there was not another judge who could hear the case or the matter had progressed to a point where his withdrawal would be detrimental to justice. Mr. Stevens also said that he would recuse himself from any matter that he had an interest or substantial involvement in. He testified that this would include matters in which an issue that he had previously litigated was being applied. Mr. Stevens said that if he decided he did not need to recuse himself from a matter in which the issue had been raised, he would get written permission from all parties before he proceeded with the matter.

Mr. Stevens said that he would not accept gifts and would prefer not to go to lunch with attorneys who appear before him. He did indicate that he would attend social gatherings as long as the invitation was not from a party or attorney who appeared before him. Mr. Stevens testified that it is just as important to avoid the appearance of impropriety as it is to avoid the impropriety itself.

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The input the Joint Committee received from its survey and from the Bar indicated that Mr. Stevens is intelligent and knowledgeable. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting, a Masters of Business Administration degree, and a law degree from the University of South Carolina and a Master of Law in Taxation degree from the William and Mary School of Law.

Mr. Stevens has complied with all continuing legal education requirements. He has also taught a course in federal tax at Midlands Technical College, lectured at the University of South Carolina School of Law, presented several continuing legal education classes, lectured at a Bar meeting, and participated in Vanderbilt University's Hartman Tax Forum Moot Court presentation.

Mr. Stevens's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was 3.33 out of 4. His answers were generally excellent, and he demonstrated a thorough understanding of the Administrative Procedures Act, the rights and powers of agencies, and the rights of parties and protestants in administrative proceedings.

The Joint Committee found that Mr. Stevens has had a specialized, but very sophisticated practice and excellent experience with the type of matters, particularly those of revenue and taxation, that he would handle as an Administrative Law Judge. Mr. Stevens has specialized in the area of taxation, and the Joint Committee believes that his experience would be of great assistance to the Administrative Law Judge Division.

Mr. Stevens is currently Chief Deputy Attorney General and Director of the Attorney General's Tax Division. He drafts Attorney General opinions, advises the Department of Revenue and Taxation on all hearings on taxation and ABC matters, advises county and municipal officials, and is responsible for state litigation at all levels.

Mr. Stevens has taken eighteen cases to trial in the last two years and has had an extensive appellate practice. In the last five years, he has appeared in federal district court three times, state trial court twenty times, state appellate court fifteen times, before the South Carolina Tax Board twice, and before the South Carolina Tax Commission seventy-five times as an advisor and one time representing a party.

Mr. Stevens has been with the Attorney General's office since 1980. Prior to that time, he spent one year with the Internal Revenue Service as an Estate and Gift Tax Examiner and one year in general corporate practice with emphasis on taxation.

4. Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal anything that would indicate a potential problem with judicial temperament. Throughout the Joint Committee's work with Mr. Stevens, he demonstrated the qualities and character required for a judge of outstanding judicial temperament. Furthermore, the input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and from the Bar's investigation indicated that Mr. Stevens has the temperament required for service on the bench.

5. Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Stevens was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

Mr. Stevens testified that his responsibilities to his wife and three school age children would not detract from or limit his service on the bench.

Mr. Stevens testified that he would serve a full term if elected and that he had no plans to return to private practice. He indicated that, if elected, he would serve in the Division for the rest of his career.

Mr. Stevens appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

7. Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Stevens has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

Mr. Stevens has worked in the public sector since 1978.

9. Ethics:

Mr. Stevens testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Stevens also testified that he has spent $171.80 on his campaign and has reported these expenditures to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

Mr. Stevens testified that he understood the new Joint Committee rule requiring him to wait forty-eight hours after the draft report is released before he may begin seeking commitments.

Members of the General Assembly received a letter signed by several members of the tax bar endorsing Mr. Stevens's candidacy. Mr. Stevens testified that he had not asked those individuals to speak on his behalf and that, to the best of his recollection, none of them had matters pending before him for an Attorney General's opinion or a Department of Revenue and Taxation opinion with which he might be involved.

10. Miscellaneous:

Mr. Stevens testified that he could bring expertise in the tax area to the Administrative Law Judge Division and that he wants to be a part of the Division because he enjoys the give and take of the legal questions, hard arguments and weighing facts in evidence.

The Joint Committee did not receive any complaints or statements in opposition to Mr. Stevens's election.

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Ms. Wiggins was screened on February 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

1. Integrity and Impartiality:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.

Ms. Wiggins demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges. On the issue of ex parte communications, Ms. Wiggins stated that she disapproves of such communications and the only time she engaged in such communications was when she was a guardian in family court and was allowed to do so.

On the issue of recusal, Ms. Wiggins testified that if there appeared to be a conflict of interest in a matter she would recuse herself. She also testified that she would not hear a matter in which she held even a de minimis financial interest.

Ms. Wiggins testified that she would never accept gifts and would accept the social hospitality of only those people who are not likely to appear before her.

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The input the Joint Committee received from its survey and from the Bar indicated that Ms. Wiggins is intelligent. As to the issue of whether or not she is knowledgeable in the law, the Joint Committee expressed concern about the depth of Ms. Wiggins's legal knowledge. Ms. Wiggins's Martindale-Hubbell rating is CV. Ms. Wiggins's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was a 1.4 out of a possible 4 points. Ms. Wiggins was clearly familiar with some elements of the Administrative Procedures Act such as the definition of substantial evidence and the burden of proof in licensing matters. She was, however, unfamiliar with the legal standard of review for agency regulations, the issue of whether agencies have inherent authority, and the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Ms. Wiggins had some knowledge of the standard of review for agency appeals, the issue of when the Administrative Procedures Act would control over a specific statutory grant, standing, and the application of the rules of evidence in administrative matters. Her

3. Professional Experience:

Ms. Wiggins has valuable experience in the practice of law, but has practically no experience with the type of matters that come before the Administrative Law Judge Division. The input the Joint Committee received from its survey and from the Bar raised concerns about a lack of applicable experience, and the Joint Committee is somewhat troubled by what it finds to be Ms. Wiggins's lack of experience with the type of matters that come before the Administrative Law Judge Division.

Ms. Wiggins has been in private practice since graduating from law school in 1986. Her practice has been primarily domestic (60%) and civil (40%). Ms. Wiggins testified that she has recently been working on civil matters such as personal injury cases, products liability cases, and construction litigation. The vast majority of her continuing legal education over the past five years has been in the areas of probate, trust, real estate, personal injury, and ethics.

She has practiced some administrative law, but with one exception, this has been strictly in the areas of social security disability and workers' compensation. These matters are handled before federal administrative law judges and Workers' Compensation Commissioners respectively and have but slight similarities to matters handled by the Administrative Law Judge Division. For example, the Administrative Procedures Act does not apply in social security disability matters, but the act is used extensively by judges of the Administrative Law Judge Division. Ms. Wiggins indicated that she has handled fifteen social security cases and five workers' compensation cases in the last five years. The one other type of administrative law case she handled was six or seven years ago and was a employee grievance matter that was likely not a contested case under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Ms. Wiggins did testify that she has served as a hearing officer for the Department of Consumer Affairs which would be somewhat similar to work in the Administrative Law Judge Division. The Joint Committee's research indicates that Ms. Wiggins presided over only three hearings since 1993, and all of the hearings involved pro se matters in which a department staff attorney drafted the orders.

Ms. Wiggins testified that her broad legal experience would transfer easily into the administrative arena and that she could further compensate by study of the Administrative Procedures Act.

| Printed Page 1650, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 1670, Mar. 14 |