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 3810, May 23
| Printed Page 3830, May 23
|
Printed Page 3820 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
Judge Watson served in the United States Air Force from 1958-1962.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Watson 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 Watson meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the
office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Watson qualified and said:
He has an admirable record of more than twenty years as a Family Court
judge.
He is courteous and respectful to lawyers, litigants, and witnesses.
Judge Watson works hard, is punctual and is prompt in making decisions.
He is considered to be fair-minded and patient. He has excellent judicial
temperament.
H. Bruce Williams, Esquire
Candidate for the Family Court of the 5th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Williams was screened on May 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:
Mr. Williams demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct
and other ethical considerations important to judges.
Mr. Williams is employed by Americall Corporation as an agent to sell long-
distance service. He indicated that he is associated with other lawyers
through Americall and that he would resolve any potential conflict of interest
with these attorneys by resigning from Americall.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable.
His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions
exceeded expectations.
Mr. Williams' Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
Mr. Williams was named as a defendant creditor in a foreclosure action
because of a family court order awarding him attorney's fees to be paid by
defendant/debtor.
Printed Page 3821 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Williams describes his practice since graduation from law school in 1982
as a general practice of law with a primary emphasis on family law and
personal injury law. Mr. Williams has been a part-time municipal judge for
the City of Irmo since 1991.
Mr. Williams estimated that he appears in federal court infrequently and in
state court weekly. He said that his state court appearances are primarily in
Family Court.
Mr. Williams estimated that his practice over the last five years has been
35% civil, 5% criminal, and 60% domestic.
Mr. Williams provided the Joint Committee with a list of five of his most
significant matters. He described those matter as follows:
(a) Melvin v. Melvin: Long-term marriage involving issues of
contested divorce and equitable distribution including military
retirement.
(b) Inman v. Inman: A custody case involving a mother who moved out
of state. The mother retained custody, but she had to return to South
Carolina.
(c) Oswald v. Oswald: A contested domestic action involving child
support, visitation, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. This
case was significant in that it involved domestic issues and private
domestic actions.
(d) Jackson v. Jackson: A domestic case tried for mother, seeking
custody and visitation, who had in prior years given up custody and
visitation with her children. Custody was obtained for the mother.
(e) Bullard v. Ehrhardt: This case established the duty of a store
owner to invitees for the criminal actions of third parties in negligence
actions.
Mr. Williams provided the Joint Committee with a list of four civil appeals
he has handled. Three of the appeals listed appear to have been domestic
matters and one was the Bullard v. Ehrhardt matter discussed above.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Williams' temperament would be
excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Williams 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. Williams is married with children, ages 7 and 3.
Printed Page 3822 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Williams 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. Williams has managed his financial affairs
responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Williams ran unsuccessfully for the Family Court in 1994.
Mr. Williams is active in professional and civic activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Williams was employed as a lobbyist in 1990 by the S.C. Society of
Opthamologists and the S.C. Funeral Director's Association.
Mr. Williams reported on his application materials that his campaign
expenditures have totaled $82.56.
Mr. Williams 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. Williams meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the
office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Williams qualified and said:
His practice is primarily in family law, and he is perceived to be
competent in the area.
He presently serves as a city judge and has an excellent reputation for
that service.
Judge Williams is considered courteous, truthful, conscientious, and
diligent. It is believed he would have excellent temperament on the Family
Court bench.
He is perceived to be fair and impartial on the bench.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
/s/Rep. F. Greg Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Rep. Paula H. Thomas
Printed Page 3823 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
/s/Rep. Ralph W. Canty
/s/Rep. W. Douglas Smith
The Honorable William K. Charles, Jr.
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 8th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Four members voted to find Judge Charles qualified
and four members voted to find Judge Charles not
qualified.
Judge Charles was screened on May 11, 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:
See the attached reports of the majority and minority.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Charles to be intelligent and knowledgeable.
His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met
expectations.
Judge Charles has been appealed in 5 reported appellate decisions and was
reversed, in whole or in part, in 2 of those matters.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Charles was admitted to the Bar in 1949.
Judge Charles practiced with the firm of Charles & Charles from 1949 to
1971. He was engaged in the general practice of law, particularly civil,
criminal, tort, and real estate law. Judge Charles was the city attorney for
the City of Greenwood from 1961 to 1983. From 1971 to 1975, Judge Charles was
a sole practitioner engaged in the practice of civil, criminal, real estate,
and family law. Judge Charles practiced with the firm of Charles, Charles
& Scurry from 1975 to 1983. He was elected to the Family Court bench in
1983.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Charles' temperament would be
excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Charles 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 Charles is married with 3 adult children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Charles appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the
duties of the office he seeks.
Printed Page 3824 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled
financial status. Judge Charles has managed his financial affairs
responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Charles has been a member of the Family Court since 1984.
Judge Charles was a member of the United States Marine Corps from 1943 to
1946.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Charles 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 Charles meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the
office he seeks.
Judge Charles has been sued twice. The first matter was in 1984, Brown v.
Charles, and was an action for reimbursement of expenses paid by the City
of Greenwood on his behalf as city attorney. Judge Charles incurred the
expenses in meetings of the S.C. Municipal Association and other related city
activities. The suit was dismissed with prejudice. Judge Charles indicated
that the plaintiff had a history of filing law suits against public officials,
and the court admonished him on the record for bringing this and other
frivolous actions.
The second action was 1990, Potts v. C. Price, Clerk of Family Court and
the Chief Judge of Family Court, and was an action which in which the
plaintiff contended that she was denied due process in that the defendant
failed to file her summons and complaint for a divorce. Judge Charles had
made a determination that the Family Court did not have jurisdiction, that the
plaintiff had not been a resident of S.C. for the required period. He had
instructed the Clerk to write the plaintiff and inform her of the
jurisdictional problem and return her filing fee. This matter was dismissed
on motion for summary judgment.
The Bar found Judge Charles qualified and said:
He has considerable experience in the judicial system having served as
Family Court judge for approximately twelve years.
He is respected by an overwhelming majority of the members of the Bar
contacted for his legal skills, impartiality, judicial temperament, and
promptness and industry in his work.
Printed Page 3825 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
Lawyers practicing before Judge Charles felt he ran an efficient court and
was described by many as a no-nonsense judge.
His character, integrity, and reputation are considered excellent.
The Honorable William K. Charles, Jr.
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 8th Judicial Circuit
Report of Members Voting to Find Judge Charles Not Qualified
The Joint Committee was contacted by a witness who wished to testify in
opposition to Judge Charles' re-election. A Joint Committee staff person
contacted Judge Charles as per the Joint Committee's rules to inform him of the
witness' desire to testify against him. Judge Charles then contacted the
witness' attorney whom he knew would discourage her from testifying. In his
testimony before the Joint Committee, Judge Charles admitted contacting the
witness' attorney and did not appear to believe that his conduct was improper.
We believe that Judge Charles' conduct was inexcusable. Judge Charles
attempted to protect himself by intimidating a witness. Such behavior is
repugnant, particularly when the conduct is by a member of the judiciary. Judge
Charles admitted on the record that he contacted the witness' attorney and said
"It's my decision when my neck's on the line." We believe that this
matter is of such a serious nature that we cannot in good conscience find Judge
Charles qualified for further service on the bench.
The judicial screening process depends on witnesses being able to appear
before the Joint Committee without fear of reprisal or intimidation or being
subject to chilling influences. Interference with witnesses strikes at the
heart of this process, and judges should be held to the highest standards in
this regard.
VOTING AGAINST CANDIDATE:
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Rep. F. Greg Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman
/s/Rep. W. Douglas Smith
The Honorable William K. Charles, Jr.
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 8th Judicial Circuit
Report of Members Voting to Find Judge Charles Qualified
Judge Charles has had a long record of service on the bench and has served
with distinction. Judge Charles may have acted improperly in
Printed Page 3826 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
contacting the witness' attorney, but he was honest and forthright about having
made the contact and this was one isolated incident which should not disqualify
him from further service on the bench.
VOTING IN SUPPORT OF CANDIDATE:
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Rep. Paula H. Thomas
/s/Rep. Ralph W. Canty
The Honorable Abigail Rogers
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 5th Judicial Circuit
Report of the Majority
Joint Committee's Finding: Not Qualified
Judge Rogers was screened on May 11, 12, and 16, 1995, after a thorough
investigation. The majority's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative
criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The input the Joint Committee received from the public and from members of
the Bar was very divided. Some individuals reported that Judge Rogers'
integrity and impartiality are excellent, but the Joint Committee received
evidence that Judge Rogers is at times arrogant and attempts to intimidate
people by using the power and prestige of her office.
The majority is particularly concerned by evidence of a situation in which
Judge Rogers attempted to use her judicial office to intimidate her former
secretary. The majority believes that Judge Rogers threatened to issue a
bench warrant for the arrest of her former secretary after the secretary took
another job. The majority is aware of inconsistencies in the testimony on
this issue, particularly with respect to when telephone calls were made, how
many telephone calls were made, and whether the secretary had given Judge
Rogers notice of her intent to resign, but the majority believes that these
inconsistencies were not material and actually help to corroborate the
secretary and her employer because they tend to indicate that the witnesses
had not rehearsed their testimony. The secretary and her employer were
subpoenaed late at night to immediately appear before the Joint Committee, had
not previously contacted the Joint Committee, and reluctantly testified.
Their testimony was corroborated by a family court judge and several other
witnesses who appeared only after being
Printed Page 3827 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
subpoenaed. For these and other reasons, the majority believes that Judge
Rogers threatened to issue a bench warrant for the secretary's arrest and was
not truthful about this issue in her testimony under oath before the Joint
Committee. The majority believes that they cannot, in view of the evidence,
find a judge who abused her power and did not tell the truth under oath to the
General Assembly's screening committee qualified for further service on the
bench.
The majority was also very troubled by testimony that Judge Rogers issued an
invalid subpoena to Southern Bell and then attempted to intimidate a Southern
Bell employee into complying with the subpoena. Southern Bell's custodian of
records testified that she was served with a subpoena duces tecum which Judge
Rogers had signed and which attempted to compel her to produce the records of
incoming local telephone calls to Judge Rogers' residence. The custodian of
records contacted Judge Rogers about the subpoena because she believed it to
be invalid. The custodian of records testified that Judge Rogers' tone was
harsh and that Judge Rogers used her judicial office in an attempt to
intimidate the custodian of records into complying with an invalid subpoena.
Judge Rogers admitted issuing the subpoena, but said she did so at the
suggestion of a Southern Bell employee whom she could not name. Judge Rogers
denied attempting to intimidate the custodian of records. The majority is
troubled by this incident because it believes that Judge Rogers abused her
judicial power by issuing the subpoena and, most importantly, by attempting to
intimidate the custodian of records.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The majority believes that Judge Rogers is intelligent and knowledgeable.
Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met
expectations.
Judge Rogers' record on appeal since her election in 1991 has been good as
she has been appealed in two reported appellate decisions and was affirmed in
both of those matters. She was, however, reversed in several
unreported appellate decisions. These matters concern the majority as
they dealt with situations in which the appellate court believed that Judge
Rogers improperly incarcerated juveniles. In June of 1992 the Supreme Court
granted a habeas corpus petition in the matter of In re Christopher B.
in part because Judge Rogers had ordered a 17-year old confined to DYS custody
for a status offense. In this matter the status offense was truancy and the
minor had been charged with only one such offense. In March of 1993, Judge
Rogers' order in In re Stacey R. incarcerating a 15-year old female for
Printed Page 3828 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
incorrigibility was vacated by a per curiam order of the Supreme Court.
The court stated that it must "again remind family court judges that mere
status offenders are not to be placed in detention facilities." In April
of 1994 in In re Beatrice N., the Supreme Court issued another per curiam
order reversing Judge Rogers' detention of a 15 year old female for a status
offense, this time for the offenses of incorrigibility and truancy. The
majority understand that judges make mistakes of law and are reversed from time-
to-time, but the majority is troubled that Judge Rogers has been repeatedly
reversed on the very important issue of when juveniles are to be
incarcerated.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Rogers was admitted to the Bar in 1983. She described her legal
experience as follows:
(a) 1982-1985 Fifth Circuit Assistant Solicitor. Tried cases in both Family
and General Sessions Court.
(b) 1985-1991 Assistant Chief counsel, S.C. Highway Department. Judge
Rogers did some criminal work, but the main focus of her
practice was in civil litigation, workers' compensation, and
appellate practice.
(c) 1991-Present Family Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit
Judge Rogers had little family court experience prior to her election to the
bench in 1991. She testified that she attempted to compensate for that lack
of experience by studying the law and attending CLE forums.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The majority believes that Judge Rogers is capable of exhibiting good
judicial temperament and often does so. The majority also believes, however,
that Judge Rogers tends to lose her temper and sometimes treats individuals
who appear before her very poorly. The majority believes that judges should
be stern and that it is often appropriate for a family court judge to be firm
with litigants and lawyers in the courtroom. However, the majority believes
that Judge Rogers' demeanor can be imperious instead of merely stern.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Rogers testified that she was late and had to take frequent breaks
during the period in which she was pregnant and nursing her child. Others,
including courtroom personnel, litigants, lawyers, family court judges, and
witnesses who testified on Judge Rogers' behalf, testified that she was
frequently very late in the morning and returning from lunch and from breaks.
The majority is not persuaded by the excuses Judge Rogers offered for her
tardiness. The majority also
Printed Page 3829 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23,
1995
believes, on the basis of testimony from a retired family court judge and other
evidence, that the problem was not confined strictly to that time period during
which Judge Rogers was pregnant and nursing. The majority views such problems
of punctuality as very serious because they demonstrate a lack of respect for
litigants, lawyers, and other courtroom participants.
The majority is also very concerned about evidence that Judge Rogers does not
pay attention to affidavits and other documents she is to consider. The
majority was moved by the testimony of one father who appeared before Judge
Rogers in a custody matter. The father and his attorney testified that they
submitted affidavits for Judge Rogers to consider, but the lengthy affidavits
were clocked-in at 8:59 a.m. and the hearing began at 9:00 a.m. Judge Rogers
testified that she had read the affidavits, but was concerned that the father
did not understand that she had done so. Judge Rogers testified that she
learned from this incident and would be more careful to ensure that litigants
understood she had read their materials. The majority appreciates Judge
Rogers' testimony on this issue, but is not convinced that Judge Rogers could
have read the affidavits under the circumstances of this case. Furthermore,
there was also testimony about another matter in which Judge Rogers asked a
couple if they could be reconciled when they had been divorced for many years.
The majority believes that Judge Rogers' failure to read materials presented
for her consideration is further evidence of her lack of respect for litigants
and lawyers and a very serious failure in her performance on the bench.
In the early period of Judge Rogers' service on the bench, she was slow in
the production of orders and in one situation did not report all the matters
she had under advisement to Court Administration as judges are required to do.
The majority is troubled by Judge Rogers' problems in this regard, but
believes that she has improved in this area.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Rogers appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the
duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled
financial status.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Rogers has been a Family Court Judge since 1991.
Judge Rogers was very active in undergraduate and law school activities.
| Printed Page 3810, May 23
| Printed Page 3830, May 23
|
Page Finder Index