Journal of the Senate
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 3010, May 23 | Printed Page 3030, May 23 |
Printed Page 3020 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(2)Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Garfinkel to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Mr. Garfinkel's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Garfinkel has taught a course in basic real estate law to prospective real estate agents.
Mr. Garfinkel has been a solo practitioner since his graduation from law school in 1970. Since 1989, he has practiced almost exclusively family law and he described his practice over the last 5 years as 95% domestic and 5% civil. He estimated that he appeared in state court at least once a week until the start of the 1995 legislative session.
Mr. Garfinkel provided the Joint Committee with 5 significant litigated matters and described them as follows:
(a) In re Debra Banis: The sole issue in this case was whether or not the adoptive parents committed the alleged physical and sexual abuse on the child who was the subject of the litigation. Mr. Garfinkel represented the child before the state had its present guardian ad litem program. The child and her brother were removed by the court from their home and placed in foster care, but were placed back in their parents' home for a 3-day trial period over Christmas. The 2 children felt they could not tolerate more abuse and killed their parents during this 3 day trial period.
(b) Haley v. Stratton: This case dealt with the issue of contested adoption by a stepparent. Mr. Garfinkel established that it was in a 5 year old child's best interest to be adopted by her step-father and have her natural father's rights terminated.
(c) Bishop v. Bishop: This case involved an action for divorce, custody, support, and alimony. It was one of the first cases in the Charleston area to use certified public accountants to determine the father's actual worth and his income as a practicing physician.
(d) Harris v. Estate of Gearhart: The problem presented in this case was how to determine paternity when the alleged father had been killed in an automobile accident and had been embalmed and buried several months prior. Mr. Garfinkel discovered that SLED had obtained a vial of the father's blood after his accident for the purpose of performing a blood alcohol test, and Mr. Garfinkel obtained the blood and had the paternity test conducted.
(e) Outzs v. Outzs: This case involved the question of what constitutes a change of circumstances so as to warrant a change of
Printed Page 3021 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
custody. At the time of the original divorce decree the father lost custody due to his alcohol and drug abuse and inability to maintain steady employment. The father regained custody in this matter by establishing that he had resolved his alcohol and drug problems and built a successful business.
Mr. Garfinkel provided the Joint Committee with 1 domestic appeal he has handled. The matter was O'Shields v. O'Shields and was decided by the S.C. Supreme Court in 1972.
Mr. Garfinkel has been a member of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Board since 1991 and served as State Chairman from 1992 to 1994.
Mr. Garfinkel is an issuing agent for title insurance under the name of AccenTitle Insurance Agency. He has been a title agent since 1978 and his company is a sole proprietorship.
Mr. Garfinkel reported that he has handled a significant number of arbitrations for the American Arbitration Association and was invited by the Association to be 1 of only 25 attorneys from the Carolinas and Virginia to attend its initial course on mediation techniques.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Garfinkel's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Garfinkel 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. Garfinkel is married with 2 grown children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Garfinkel 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. Garfinkel has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Garfinkel has been a member of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Board since 1991 and served as State Chairman from 1992 to 1994.
Mr. Garfinkel ran unsuccessfully for the family court in 1993.
Mr. Garfinkel has been active in professional and civil activities.
Printed Page 3022 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(9)Ethics:
Mr. Garfinkel reports in his application materials that he has spent $142 on his campaign.
Mr. Garfinkel 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. Garfinkel meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Garfinkel qualified and said:
The people interviewed generally perceived him a having a broad range of experience in the Family Court.
He is intelligent and knowledgeable in the law, is industrious and has an excellent work ethic.
The majority of those interviewed felt that Mr. Garfinkel is polite, friendly, extremely sympathetic and caring.
He is well-respected by both his peers and members of the non-legal community because of his personal involvement in the community.

Roger Henderson, Esquire

Candidate for the Family Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit

Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Mr. Henderson 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. Henderson 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 Mr. Henderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Henderson lectured at a CLE seminar on the subject of jury selection.
Mr. Henderson's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV.

Printed Page 3023 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(3)Professional Experience:
Mr. Henderson began the general practice of law with his father-in-law upon graduation from law school in 1978. When his father-in-law retired in 1982, Mr. Henderson continued a solo general practice until 1985 when he formed a partnership with William O. Spencer, Jr. An associate, Mary Thomas Johnson, joined the firm in 1993, and the three attorneys have continued a general practice of law. Mr. Henderson reported on his application materials that he has since 1985 concentrated in the areas of family law, criminal law, and personal injury matters.
Mr. Henderson estimated that he appears in federal court twice a year, in state court 15-20 times per month, before the Workers' Compensation Commission 2-3 times per month, before the Social Security Administration 2-3 times per month, and in magistrate's court 5-6 times per month.
Mr. Henderson estimated that his practice over the last five years has been 40% domestic, 20% criminal, and 20% civil.
Mr. Henderson provided the Joint Committee with five significant litigated matters. These matters included:
(a) Chesterfield County Rural Water Company Inc. v. Town of Cheraw: This matter was significant in that Mr. Henderson obtained an order in federal court prohibiting the Town of Cheraw from entering the rural water company service areas. Additionally, Mr. Henderson represented a rural water company and lost against the towns of Pageland and Chesterfield and obtained out-of-court settlements which resulted in agreements establishing permanent service territories for the rural water companies in the towns.
(b) Danny Lee Rainwater v. Donald Kay Wolfe Rainwater: This matter was significant in that it involved custody of the Rainwater's four children which was originally split by the Family Court, but through Mr. Henderson's efforts, the court eventually granted Mr. Rainwater custody of all four children. Mrs. Rainwater later kidnapped all four children and took them to Germany, but was arrested and the children were returned to Mr. Rainwater upon their return to the United States.
(c) Mary C. Crowley v. Robert Taylor: This matter was significant in that Mr. Henderson obtained a jury verdict of $2,000 actual damage for Mrs. Crowley and $40,000 in punitive damages due to the fact that Mr. Taylor was operating an automobile in flagrant violation of the law and that he was driving under the influence of alcohol while being pursued at a high rate of speed by a police
Printed Page 3024 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
officer. The jury sought fit to punish Mr. Taylor and make an example of him.
(d) James H. Dixon v. Nucor Steel Corporation: This matter was significant in that Mr. Henderson was successful in proving before the Workers' Compensation Commission that Mr. Dixon was permanently disabled from materials he breathed during his employment.
(e) State v. John Parks: This matter was significant in that Mr. Parks, who was charged with criminal sexual conduct with his 8 year old stepdaughter, was acquitted after Mr. Henderson was able to convince the jury that the child's testimony was without feeling and emotion due to her having been coached by her mother who is separated from Mr. Parks.
Mr. Henderson provided the Joint Committee the 3 civil appeals he has handled. One of the 3 appeals was Dixon v. Nucor Steel Corporation as discussed above, one was a slip and fall case, and the 3rd was a domestic matter.
Mr. Henderson was the Recorder for the Town of Chesterfield from 1978 to 1982. In this capacity, he handled all traffic and criminal offenses in which the punishment did not exceed 30 days or a $200 fine.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Henderson's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Henderson 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. Henderson is married and has three children, ages 16, 13, and 7.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Henderson 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. Henderson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Henderson served in the United States Army Reserves from 1971 to 1977 and was honorably discharged.
Printed Page 3025 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
Mr. Henderson was the Recorder for the Town of Chesterfield from 1978 to 1982.
Mr. Henderson was Chairman of the Chesterfield County Election Commission from 1979 to 1984. He was also a member of the S.C. Commission on Higher Education from 1986 to 1993, and is presently a member of the Chesterfield County School District Board of Education.
Mr. Henderson is active in community and professional affairs.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Henderson 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. Henderson meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Henderson qualified and said:
He has been engaged in the general practice of law for approximately 17 years with emphasis in the areas of family, criminal, and personal injury law.
He has had extensive experience in domestic relations law and is viewed as a competent practitioner in family court.
Mr. Henderson is energetic, capable, industrious, and well-liked and respected by his peers as well as those in the non-legal community.
His character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.
He has an excellent demeanor and is expected to exhibit good judicial temperament. It is felt that he would be fair and impartial.

The Honorable G. Larry Inabinet

Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court

of the 2nd Judicial Circuit

Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge Inabinet was screened on May 5, 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 Inabinet demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Printed Page 3026 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
Judge Inabinet is a director and officer of Main Street Auto Parts, Inc. He owns 49% of the stock with the balance owned by a partner. His partner runs the business and he does not participate in the daily operations.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Inabinet to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Inabinet has been appealed in 11 reported appellate decisions and was reversed, in whole or in part, in 6 of those matters.
Judge Inabinet has attended over 100 hours of CLE in the past 5 years.
Judge Inabinet has spoken at a JCLE seminar on the termination of parental rights.
Judge Inabinet's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1983) was BV.
Judge Inabinet provided the Joint Committee with 5 significant orders or opinions.
Judge Inabinet serves as Administrative Judge for the Second Circuit and has done so since 1986. He also serves as the Family Court representative on the Commission on Continuing Legal Education from 1988 to 1991.
Judge Inabinet speaks on a regular basis at training programs for the Guardian ad Litem and juvenile arbitration programs. He has also spoken at meetings of the Legal Secretaries Association.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Inabinet was admitted to the Bar in 1970.
Judge Inabinet began practicing law in 1970 with Sam Ray. He became an associate with the firm of Brown, Jeffries & Boulware, in 1974. His practice of law included torts, property matters, domestic matters, small corporations, small businesses, banking, criminal, estate planning, and probating estates. He was elected a Family Court Judge in 1983.
Judge Inabinet served as a special referee from 1974 to 1983.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Inabinet's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Inabinet 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 Inabinet is married with two adult children.
Printed Page 3027 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(6)Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Inabinet 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 Inabinet has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Inabinet served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1976.
Judge Inabinet has been a Family Court Judge since 1983.
Judge Inabinet was elected to the Barnwell County Council in 1972 and served until 1983.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Inabinet 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 Inabinet meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
There was an article in the November 13, 1992 edition of the Charlotte Observer which reported that fathers who don't make court-ordered child support payments will find themselves working or trying to find a job if they are jailed at the Aiken County Detention Center. The report was about a new program designed to put defendants in contempt to work. Judge Inabinet was quoted as saying, "Two good things about this: you've got child support coming in and they don't lose their jobs."
Judge Inabinet was sued along with other members of the Barnwell County Council in 1973 with respect to a defunct industrial revenue bond. His law firm was also sued at that time because the senior partner was the Barnwell County attorney at the time the bond was issued. The case was dismissed.

Printed Page 3028 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
Deadra L. Jefferson, Esquire

Candidate for the Family Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit

Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Ms. Jefferson 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:
Ms. Jefferson 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 Ms. Jefferson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Jefferson is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Jefferson has been an attorney for 5 1/2 years.
Ms. Jefferson was a business law instructor at Trident Technical College paralegal program during the 1993-94 school year.
Ms. Jefferson described her legal experience since graduation from law school in 1989 as follows:
(a) 1989-1990 Law clerk to the Honorable Richard E. Fields. Primary responsibilities included legal research, preparation of jury charges, preparation of orders, scheduling of motions, tasks required to prepare the judge for trials/hearings, and other daily tasks required by the judge to ensure smooth operation of the court.
(b) 1990-Present Attorney with McFarland & Associates. Trial practice focusing on domestic relations, all types of civil litigation, probate law, real estate law, and criminal law.
Ms. Jefferson estimates that she has appeared in federal court 15 times during the last 5 years and has appeared in state court approximately 50-60 times during the last 5 years. She indicates that she has appeared as infrequently as once a week and as frequently as 4 times a week in Family Court since entering private practice in 1990. She also estimates that she has appeared in Probate Court 20 times during the last five years and has appeared in magistrate's or municipal court approximately 50 times during the last 5 years.
Ms. Jefferson estimated that her practice over the last 5 years has been 47% civil, 6% criminal, and 47% domestic.

Printed Page 3029 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
Ms. Jefferson provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(a) Blake v. County of Charleston: This case involved complex federal civil rights litigation. The trial lasted for 2 weeks and involved many motions and other complex legal issues relating to evidence of the new federal rules. Ms. Jefferson reports that she tried this case with two other lawyers, both of whom had been practicing for more than 18 years. Ms. Jefferson indicated that her responsibilities included arguing motions, examining witnesses, preparing motions, and preparing jury charges.
(b) Hymes v. Khoury: Ms. Jefferson describes this case as a simple auto accident case which she did not think would be successful, but said the case taught her the importance of the strategic application of the civil rules of procedure in case law. She said the case took one day to try, but the jury deliberated for two days and returned a verdict for her client.
(c) In re: The Estate of Joseph J. White, Jr.: The central issues in this Probate Court case involved the paternity of a 2 year old child of the victim of an automobile fatality.
(d) Ashby v. Ashby: Ms. Jefferson indicated that she represented the plaintiff/husband who sought custody of his three children in this case. The court applied the primary caretaker doctrine and awarded custody to the father. The case also involved issues of equitable distribution, adultery, child support, and attorney's fees.
(e) Thompson v. Polite: This case involved a hotly-contested issue of visitation between the plaintiff/husband and his minor son. The defendant/wife was adamant in her refusal to allow visitation, but the plaintiff/husband was awarded reasonable visitation at the temporary hearing of this case. Prior to the final hearing, the clients submitted to mediation and through this process they were able to come to an amicable agreement regarding visitation and the rearing of their child. Ms. Jefferson said this case reinforced her belief and the value of alternative dispute resolution as a method of improving the efficient use of court time and resources.
Ms. Jefferson has never handled an appeal.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Jefferson's temperament would be excellent.

| Printed Page 3010, May 23 | Printed Page 3030, May 23 |
Page Finder Index

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:11 P.M.