1995 Permanent House Journal Printed Pages 3790-3800 - South Carolina Legislature Online

Journal of the House of Representatives
of the First Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 10, 1995

Page Finder Index

Printed Page 3780, May 23 | Printed Page 3800, May 23

Printed Page 3790 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Mr. Lawrence and his 2 brothers (Lawrence, Lawrence & Lawrence, L.L.C.) own real property in Greenwood County upon which they are developing a subdivision, condominiums, and commercial property.
Mr. Lawrence owns two residential real estate development companies, Arbours West Partnership and Arbours West Investment Group, Inc., with 4 other individuals.
Mr. Lawrence owns 1/2 of the building in which his law office is located. The other 1/2 of the building is owned by his co-tenant who is a real estate agent.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Lawrence to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Lawrence participated as a lecturer in the CLE programs entitled "Hot Tips from the Experts 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994."
Mr. Lawrence's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV.
Mr. Lawrence is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Lawrence was admitted to the Bar in 1969.
Mr. Lawrence described his legal experience as follows:
(a) 1968-1970 U.S. Army JAGC
(b) 1970-1971 Butler, Chapman, Parler & Morgan (business and trial defense work)
(c) 1971-1976 Butler, Means, Evins & Browne (business and trial defense work)
(d) 1976-1978 Sole practitioner with a general practice
(e) 1978-1989 Lawrence & Shaw (general practice with concentration on domestic law)
(f) 1989-1992 Brown & Hagins (general practice concentrating on domestic law)
(g) 1992-1993 Lawrence & Shaw
(h) 1993-1994 Sole practitioner with a general practice concentrating on domestic law
(i) 1994-Present Lawrence & Cabler (general practice concentrating on domestic law)
Mr. Lawrence estimated that over the past 5 years he has appeared in federal court once per year and in state court daily. He has also appeared 2 or 3 times per year before the Workers' Compensation Commission and Unemployment Compensation Commission.

Printed Page 3791 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Mr. Lawrence estimated that his practice over the past 5 years has been 40% civil, 10% criminal, and 50% domestic.
Mr. Lawrence provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant legal matters which he described as follows:
(a) Valtrol, Inc. v. General Connectors Corp.: Commercial litigation in federal district court. The matter required extensive discovery and 3 days of trial.
(b) Valtrol, Inc. v. General Connectors Corp.: Appeal to the 4th Circuit.
(c) Landrum v. Robinson: This matter which Mr. Lawrence handled at both the trial and appellate levels involved an action seeking to require a father to help pay for his son's college expenses. The talented son wanted to go to the best school he could get into and had obtained scholarships, grants, and loans and had gotten financial assistance from his mother and a job so that he could earn part of the money himself. The court required the father to assist his son.
(d) McKeown v. McKeown: Custody trial which involved allegations of homosexuality, child abuse, and the removal of children from the state.
(e) Stutz v. Funderburk: Mr. Lawrence argued this matter before the South Carolina Supreme Court and it was one of the last cases in South Carolina to apply the "tender years doctrine."
Mr. Lawrence provided the Joint Committee with a list of 5 civil appeals, 4 of which were domestic matters. Mr. Lawrence estimated that he has handled 7 or 8 appeals in state appellate court and 1 case to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Lawrence's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Lawrence 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. Lawrence is married with 5 grown children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Lawrence appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

Printed Page 3792 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Lawrence has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Lawrence served in the U.S. Army form 1968 to 1970. His tour of duty included time spent in Vietnam.
Mr. Lawrence ran unsuccessfully for the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1978 and for the South Carolina Senate in 1982.
Mr. Lawrence is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Lawrence 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.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Lawrence meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Lawrence qualified and said:
He is an experienced family court practitioner.
He is considered a zealous advocate who is always well-prepared.
Mr. Lawrence has an excellent reputation for character, integrity, honesty, and diligence, all of which are perceived would serve him well as a judge.
His temperament is beyond reproach, and it is perceived he will be impartial and fair to all parties who appear before him.

Ben F. Mack, Esquire
Candidate for the Family Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Mr. Mack was screened on May 10, 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:
Mr. Mack demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Printed Page 3793 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Mack to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Mack received his B.A from Syracuse in 1974 and his J.D. from Tulane in 1980. He also attended graduate school at S.U.N.Y. and Georgetown from 1974 to 1976 and was a high school teacher in Maryland from 1975 to 1977.
Mr. Mack is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Mack is an adjunct professor at Charleston Southern University where he teaches business law.
Mr. Mack described his legal experience as follows:
(a) 1981 Charleston County Public Defender's Office
(b) 1981-1983 Ninth Circuit Solicitor's Office
(c) 1982-1992 Almeika, DeVane & Mack -- Practiced family law, criminal law, tort law.
(d) 1992-Present Solo Practitioner -- Practicing family law, criminal law, tort law.
Mr. Mack estimated that over the past 5 years he has appeared in federal court with limited frequency including one 5 week criminal trial, but that he appears in state court weekly.
Mr. Mack estimated that over the past 5 years his practice has been 75% domestic, 15% criminal, and 10% civil.
Mr. Mack provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) United States v. Overton: (U.S. District Court) Mr. Mack represented defendant Gregory Overton in a multi-defendant drug conspiracy trial which lasted for 5 weeks. Mr. Mack also represented the defendant on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The matter is still on appeal.
(b) Shirley Graham v. Stanley Williams: (Charleston County Family Court) This matter was a multi-day custody trial involving the interests of 3 minor children of the parties. Mr. Mack represented defendant Williams in this action for a change in custody. The trial court's order allowed Mr. Williams to retain custody of the 3 children, the order was affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's request for a writ of certiorari.
(c) William K. Rader v. Robert E. Sheeley: (Dorchester County Family Court) This matter was a custody case in which Mr. Mack

Printed Page 3794 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

represented plaintiff Rader as stepparent seeking custody of a child after the death of the child's biological mother to whom plaintiff was married. The defendant, who was the child's biological father, sought an order returning custody of the child to him. The case was tried for 1 and 1/2 days before a settlement providing for joint custody was reached.
(d) William G. Geiger v. Sandra S. Geiger: (Charleston County Family Court) This is an ongoing matter involving a 1991 court approved property settlement and support agreement in which Mr. Mack represents the plaintiff. The agreement addresses the division of marital assets including real estate and the husband's small business. There is currently pending a rule to show cause for performance on the original property settlement and court interpretation of the terms of the agreement.
(e) Charleston County D.S.S. v. Anne Edwards, et al.: (Charleston County Family Court) Mr. Mack represented the defendant in an action which originally alleged abuse and neglect of her maternal granddaughter. The matter was settled without a finding of abuse, but with an agreement to continue the child in psychiatric care and DSS custody. The case is currently pending for review concerning placement of the minor child.
Mr. Mack reported that he has handled 1 domestic appeal, the Graham v. Williams matter discussed above.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Mack's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Mack 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. Mack is married with 3 children, ages 13, 10, and 2.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Mack 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. Mack has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Mack has been active in Spoleto Festival USA and in work for the Gibbes Museum of Art.

Printed Page 3795 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(9) Ethics:
Mr. Mack 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.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Mack meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Mack qualified and said:
He is generally perceived by those interviewed as intelligent and personable. It is thought that he possesses good common sense.
The majority of those interviewed felt that he is conscientious, well- prepared, and would do a good job as a Family Court judge.
It is felt that Mr. Mack would exhibit good judicial temperament and be courteous to both lawyers and litigants. He is perceived to have excellent character and integrity.
He has had broad experience in Family Court and previously served as an assistant solicitor for the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

The Honorable J. Frank McClain
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 10th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge McClain was screened on May 4, 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:
Judge McClain demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge McClain to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge McClain has been appealed in 14 appellate reported decisions and was reversed, in whole or in part, in two of those matters.
Judge McClain was a member of the S.C. Law Review from 1971 to 1973.
Judge McClain was the Survey Editor in 1972, and was a delegate to the National Law Review Conference in 1973.

Printed Page 3796 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Judge McClain delivered a lecture on the 1994 Crime Bill to the S.C. Solicitor's Association in 1994.
Judge McClain has also given continuing legal education lectures to the Anderson City Police Department and has lectured at many secondary schools on various aspects of the law.
Judge McClain reported that he had been the subject of a grievance concerning his representation of a client in a civil suit, but the grievance was determined unfounded by the Grievance Committee and was dismissed.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge McClain was admitted to the Bar in 1973.
Judge McClain was engaged in the general practice of law with the law firm of Hall & McClain from 1973 to 1979. He served as City Recorder for the City of Anderson from 1974 to 1979, and was elected Family Court Judge in 1979.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge McClain's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge McClain 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.
Judge McClain is married with two children, both 9 years old.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge McClain 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 McClain has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge McClain has been a member of the bench since 1979.
Judge McClain was an unsuccessful candidate for the S.C. House of Representatives in 1972.
Judge McClain was a school teacher and coach at Pickens Junior High School from 1968 to 1970.
Judge McClain is active in church and community activities.
Judge McClain often speaks to local schools and social organizations to educate the public on legal issues. He volunteers to assist the school safety patrol and is active in his children's activities.

Printed Page 3797 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(9) Ethics:
Judge McClain 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.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge McClain meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge McClain qualified and said:
He has served on the Family Court bench for sixteen years.
He is well versed in the law.
Judge McClain has an excellent judicial temperament and is courteous to all litigants. His integrity is beyond reproach.
He is considered to be industrious and diligent in the handling of Family Court matters before him.

The Honorable Berry L. Mobley
Candidate for Re-Election to the Family Court
of the 6th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge Mobley was screened on May 4, 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:
Judge Mobley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Mobley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Judge Mobley's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1982) was BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Mobley was admitted to the Bar in 1964.
Judge Mobley was engaged in the general practice of law from 1964 to 1982. He was elected Family Court Judge in 1982.
Judge Mobley has served as Chief Judge for administrative purposes in the following circuits:

(a) 6th Judicial Circuit;

(b) 5th Judicial Circuit;

Printed Page 3798 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(d) 11th Judicial Circuit; and

(e) 14th Judicial Circuit.
He has been assigned and held court in 24 of the 46 counties in this state.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Mobley's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Mobley 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.
Judge Mobley is married with two adult children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Mobley 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 Mobley has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Mobley has been a Family Court Judge since 1982.
Judge Mobley served in the United States Army from 1954 to 1956. He served in the S.C. State Guard from 1983 to 1990.
Judge Mobley was a member of the Lancaster County Council from 1972 to 1980. He was elected to the Board of Directors for the S.C. Association of Counties and was elected President in 1978. He was appointed by the Lancaster City Council as City Attorney in 1967, and held office until his election to County Council in 1972. He was again appointed City Attorney in 1980 and held that position until he became a Family Court Judge. Judge Mobley was appointed by Governor Richard W. Riley for a 4-year term to the Local Government Study Committee.
Judge Mobley was an unsuccessful candidate to the S.C. House of Representatives in 1968. He also ran unsuccessfully to be Solicitor of the 6th Judicial Circuit in 1970.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Mobley 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

Printed Page 3799 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Mobley meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Mobley qualified and said:
He is respected for his administration of dockets throughout the state and is consistent in the application of the rules to all attorneys.
Judge Mobley is very knowledgeable about the law, and his years of service evidence his commitment to the Family Court. He has led continuing legal education sessions and assists in the training of new judges.
He is generally regarded as fair, unbiased, and impartial by those who appear before him.
There was an article in the February 11, 1988, edition of the State in which Judge Mobley was quoted as being an advocate of alternative sentencing. He indicated that "alternative sentencing does a better job for children than incarceration -- especially for those who can be rehabilitated." He also said "we're moving into a new cycle. The whole theme of sentencing now is to sit back and look back at the alternatives."
There was a February 11, 1988, article in the State which quoted Judge Mobley on the subject of truancy. Judge Mobley was quoted as saying "Early prevention is the key. Truancy is a matter of catching the student immediately, dealing with the matter, and placing the kid back in school. . . . I think schools have got to do a lot more with programs to avoid truancy, I think the court's involvement should be as a last resort."
There was a January 17, 1991, article in the State which reported that Judge Mobley was upset about a breakdown in tracking truants in Fairfield County and met privately with the county's 9 member school board in an unusual attempt to resolve difficulties. The incident which apparently sparked Judge Mobley's concern was a hearing with two Fairfield Central High School students who had missed more than 40 school days by early January. Judge Mobley was upset because he believed he was hearing about the attendance problems after it was too late to help students.
Judge Mobley has been sued 4 times. He describes those matters as follows:

(a) In 1982, an action was filed in Federal Court, Hutchinson v. Mobley, Epps, and Dixon. It was an action by an inmate

Printed Page 3800 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

involving a sentence Judge Mobley imposed on him in a term of General Sessions Court. The action was dismissed.

Printed Page 3780, May 23 | Printed Page 3800, May 23

Page Finder Index