Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 12:00 Noon.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:
Eternal God, amid all the voices of this vast and varied world, save us from the supreme tragedy of missing Your call. In the conceit of our self-sufficiency, too often we have turned to broken cisterns of worldly wisdom and our own sophisticated cleverness. Without our God we can have no good desires, no outreach of thought beyond ourselves. Give us the dedication to go forth, sowing good seed and putting our hand to the plow which furrows the field of goodwill and truth.
Lord, in Your mercy, hear our prayer. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. SIMRILL moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Mrs. Lucille Acker Sibley of Rock Hill, which was agreed to.
Date Draft Report Issued: Monday, January 26, 1998
at 11:00 a.m.
Date and Time Final Report Issued: Wednesday, January 28, 1998
at 11:00 a.m.
The following charts include a list of all candidates. If the candidate has a "*" symbol under a category (i.e. Academic Ability), that symbol indicates that the Commission expressed concern about the candidate in that area. The placement of a "*" symbol is not, in and of itself, an indication of a candidates' failure to comply with the Commission's established criteria.
These abbreviations were used in the following chart:
Const. Qual., Constitutional Qualifications
Prac. & Proc., Practice and Procedure
Acad. Ability, Academic Ability
Char., Character
Rep., Reputation
Phy. Hth, Physical Health
Men. Hth, Mental Health
Exp., Experience
Temp., Temperament
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. The Commission has carefully investigated the candidates currently set for screening and found sixty candidates qualified for judicial office. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings and each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission is operating under its new law which went into effect July 1, 1997, which has dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. For the first time, the Commission's finding of qualified or not qualified is binding on the General Assembly. Furthermore, the Commission is required to submit no more than three names for any particular judicial race; therefore, for two races the Commission was required to pare the number of candidates presented for consideration by the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of which are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started previously. The Commission has asked Family Court candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on that court. These questions were posed in an effort to provide the members of the General Assembly more information about candidates and their thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer and feels that candidate responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.
In assessing each candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or the "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
The Commission has also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. The Commission was concerned that since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees composed of people from a broad range of experience (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for varied organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds) were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a confidential report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these confidential reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted.
The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; physical health; mental health; and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1) survey of the bench and bar;
(2) SLED and FBI investigation;
(3) credit investigation;
(4) grievance investigation;
(5) study of application materials;
(6) verification of ethics compliance;
(7) search of newspaper articles;
(8) conflict of interest investigation;
(9) court schedule study;
(10) study of appellate record;
(11) court observation; and
(12) investigation of complaints.
While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts.
The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.
This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities very seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision. If you would like to review portions of the screening transcript or other public information about a candidate before it is printed in the Journal, please contact John P. Hazzard, V or Irma R. Pringle at 212-6610 or Elizabeth Atwater at 734-3125.
This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court, Masters-in-Equity, and the Administrative Law Judge Division.
·Denotes information taken verbatim from the candidate's personal data questionnaire that was submitted by the candidate as a part of the application process.
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Justice Moore meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Supreme Court.
Justice Moore was born on March 13, 1936. He is 61 years old and a resident of Greenwood County. Justice Moore provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1961.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Justice Moore.
Justice Moore demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Justice Moore testified that he had approximately $3.00 in campaign expenditures for postage.
Justice Moore 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.
Justice Moore testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Justice Moore to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Justice Moore provided that during the previous five years he had attended more than the required JCLE courses and judicial conferences.
Justice Moore reported that he had lectured and written articles and materials for those programs numerous times on a wide variety of legal and judicial issues.
Justice Moore reported extra-judicial community involvement of speaking frequently to civic clubs and other groups about the judicial system and the work of the Supreme Court.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Justice Moore did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Justice Moore did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Justice Moore has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Justice Moore was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Justice Moore provided that he served in the North Carolina Air National Guard from 1958 to 1964. He received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of Staff Sergeant.
Justice Moore reported that as a member of the judiciary he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Justice Moore served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1968 until 1976.
Justice Moore received the Outstanding Contribution to Justice Award from the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association in 1996.
(6) Physical health:
Justice Moore appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Justice Moore appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Justice Moore was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1961.
Since his graduation from law school, Justice Moore has had a general practice of civil and criminal litigation from 1961 until 1973; as a general practitioner with the addition of criminal defense work from 1973 until 1976; as a Circuit Court Judge from 1976 until 1991; and as a Supreme Court Justice since 1991.
·Justice Moore listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Brown v. County of Horry, 308 S.C. 180, 417 S.E.2d 565 (1992)
(b) State v. Allen, 314 S.C. 539, 431 S.E.2d 563 (1993)
(c) South Carolina Tax Comm'n v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 316 S.C. 163, 447 S.E.2d 843 (1994)
(d) Ex parte: The Greenville News, ___ S.C. ___, 482 S.E.2d 556 (1997)
(e) State v. Timmons, ___ S.C. ___, 488 S.E.2d 323 (1997)
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Justice Moore's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Justice Moore is married Mary Deadwyler Moore and has two children: Erin Moore Yates (age 32, a banker in Louisville, Kentucky) and Travis W. Moore (age 30, an attorney in Greenwood, South Carolina).
Justice Moore reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) American Bar Association
(c) Greenwood County Bar Association
(d) American Judicature Society
Justice Moore provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) First Baptist Church, Greenwood, South Carolina
Justice Moore provided the following boards or committees on which he has served during his tenure in the judiciary:
(a) National College of State Judiciary, University of Nevada, 1977
(b) National College of State Judiciary, University of Nevada, 1977 (Faculty Advisor)
(c) South Carolina Circuit Court Judges Association, 1987- 1991 (Chairman)
(d) Advisory Committee, South Carolina Circuit Court Judges, 1984-1991
(e) Vice-Chairman, Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards, 1981-1991 (Chairman)
(f) Ad Hoc Committee on South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, 1982-1996 (Member)
(g) National Conference of State Trial Judges, 1989-1991 (Member, Executive Committee)
Justice Moore reported the following activities:
National College of State Judiciary, University of Nevada, 1977
Faculty Advisor, National College of State Judiciary, University of Nevada, 1985
Chairman, SC Circuit Court Judges Association, 1987-1991
Chairman, Advisory Committee, SC Circuit Court Judges, 1984-1991
Vice-Chairman, Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards, 1981-1991
Member, Ad Hoc Committee on SC Rules of Civil Procedure, 1982-1996
Member, Executive Committee, National Conference of State Trial Judges, 1989- 1991
Outstanding Contribution to Justice Award, SC Trial Lawyers Assn., 1996
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Anderson was born on November 13, 1936. He is 60 years old and a resident of Florence County. Judge Anderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1959.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.
Judge Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Anderson testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Anderson has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Anderson provided that during the previous five years he had attended the Judicial College in Reno, Nevada for one week and has attended numerous legal/judicial seminars conducted at the University of South Carolina Law School and in other locations.
Judge Anderson reported that he had lectured numerous times on a wide variety of legal and judicial issues over the last five years.
Judge Anderson reported that in addition to numerous papers used at judicial and legal seminars, he has written and published the following books and articles:
(a) NUTS AND BOLTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW, published by the CLE Division of the South Carolina Bar.
(b) SOUTH CAROLINA CIVIL TRIAL TECHNIQUES HANDBOOK, published by the CLE Division of the South Carolina Bar.
(c) AVOIDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES, published in the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Bulletin, Summer Edition, 1996.
Judge Anderson stated that he had limited his extra-judicial community involvement so as not to conflict in any way with the performance of his duties. He involves himself in church and Bar activities.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Anderson reported that as a member of the judiciary for eighteen years, he is unaware of his last Martindale-Hubbell rating.
Judge Anderson served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1972 until 1979.
Judge Anderson provided that he was the recipient of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Portrait and Scholarship Fund in 1993.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1959.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Anderson has practiced law with R.K. Wise from July 1959 until December 1959; as a sole practitioner from December 1959 until 1960; with a share agreement with Waddell Byrd from early 1960 until December 1960; as a partner with Yarborough, Parrott and Anderson from December 1960 until September 1979; as a Circuit Court Judge from September 1979 until February 1996; and as a Court of Appeals Judge since March 1996.
·Judge Anderson listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) State v. Wakefield, 323 S.C. 189, 473 S.E.2d 831 (Ct. App. 1996), cert. denied, Jan. 23, 1997.
(b) State v. Horne, ___ S.C. ___, 478 S.E.2d 289 (Ct. App. 1996). cert. denied, July 24, 1997.
(c) City of Camden v. Brassell, ___ S.C. ___, 486 S.E.2d 492 (Ct. App. 1997).
(d) Vinson v. Hartley, ___ S.C. ___, 477 S.E.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1996).
(e) Schenk v. National Healthcare, Inc., 322 S.C. 316, 471 S.E.2d 736 (Ct. App. 1996), cert. denied, December 9, 1996.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Anderson is married to Loretta Lynch Anderson and has two children: Ralph King Anderson, III (age 38, a South Carolina Administrative Law Judge) and Debra Arlene Anderson (Vause) (age 39, Music Teacher and Church Pianist).
Judge Anderson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) South Carolina Inn of Court
Judge Anderson provided that he was not a member of any civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
Judge Anderson reported that he was the Recipient of South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Portrait and Scholarship Fund--1993.
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Stevens meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service in the Administrative Law Judge Division.
Judge Stevens was born on October 7, 1949. He is 48 years old and a resident of Irmo. Judge Stevens provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Stevens.
Judge Stevens demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Stevens testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
Judge 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.
Judge Stevens testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Stevens to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Stevens has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Stevens provided that during the previous five years he has met or exceeded all CLE requirements and has taken the following courses:
(a) Aug 93, Government Duties (restructured government)
(b) Sep 93, Civil Law Update (APA Litigation)
(c) Oct 93, SE Atty's Conference (Tax cases in the SE)
(d) Jan 94, State and Local Tax Seminar (National tax litigation)
(e) May 94, State and Local Tax Seminar (National tax litigation)
(f) Aug 94, Paul J. Hartman Tax Forum (State Tax Planning)
(g) Dec 94, Ethical Issues for Leg. Attys (Ethics in enacting legislation)
(h) Sep 95, Corporate, Business and Tax (Changes by Legislature)
(I) Mar 96, Law Practice Technology (Computers in the Legal Profession)
(j) July 96, Logic and Writing for Judges (Reasoning and order writing)
(k) Oct. 97, Computers in the Courtroom (Use of computers by Judges during trial) (registered for course at National Judicial College)
(l) Oct 97, State and Local Tax Seminar (National tax litigation) (registered for seminar at Vanderbilt University)
Judge Stevens reported that he had lectured or taught the following law-related courses:
(a) Fundamentals of Federal Taxation of partnerships, corporations, and estates at Midlands Tech for one semester
(b) Guest lectures at USC Law School in Prof. Quirk's State and Local Tax classes - Duties and functions of county officials in property taxation
(c) Guest lectures at USC Law School in Prof. Quirk's State and Local Tax classes - Taxation of railroads under the Federal 4-R Act
(d) Lecturer at Greenville County Tax Bar - Remedies and Procedures for Suits Against State Officials
(e) Lecturer at Greenville County Tax Bar - Adm. Procedures Before the SC Dept. of Revenue
(f) Columbia Tax Study Group - Tax Practice Under the Revenue Procedures Act
(g) Federation of Tax Administrators - 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in State Court Tax Disputes
(h) SE Asso. of Tax Atty's - Collecting Taxes Under An Automatic Stay Due To Bankruptcy
(I) SE Asso. of Tax Atty's - Nexus and Jurisdiction for Taxation of Delaware Holding Companies
(j) Vanderbilt Univ.'s Paul J. Hartman Tax Forum - Moot Court Presentation on Taxation of Intangibles
(k) Vanderbilt Univ.'s Paul J. Hartman Tax Forum - Geoffrey v. South Carolina: Is the Camel's Nose Under the Tent?
(l) Ohio Tax Conference - Intangibles and the Creation of Nexus for Income Tax Purposes
(m) SC Chamber of Commerce - Taxes and the Bottom Line: New Tax Appeal Process
Judge Stevens reported that he had published the following books and articles:
(a) "Unwanted Assets Spun Off Prior to Acquisition of Wanted Assets" 1980 South Carolina Bar Publication
(b) "The Use of Title 42 USC Section 1983 in State Tax Litigation" 1988 REVENUE ADMINISTRATION, page 63
(c) "Delaware Subsidiaries Can Still Reduce Tax But More Planning Needed" March/April 1992 THE JOURNAL OF MULTISTATE TAXATION, page 4
(d) "Geoffrey v. South Carolina Tax Commission: Is the Camel's Nose Under the Tent?" Tax Management, Multistate Tax Report, December 22, 1995
Judge Stevens states that his activities primarily involve his church and that he has not used his position to further any activity ether church or civic.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Stevens did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Stevens did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Stevens has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Stevens was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Stevens reported that he is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell because he is not in private practice.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Stevens appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Stevens appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Stevens was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
Prior to law school, Judge Stevens earned a Master of Business Administration. Since his graduation from law school, Judge Stevens practiced corporate law with Stophel, Caldwell & Heggie from 1978-1979. In 1980, he earned a Master of Law in Taxation from William & Mary Law School. He worked as an IRS examiner from 1979-1980. From 1980-1995, Judge Stevens was Chief Deputy Attorney General and Director of the Tax Division. He was elected to the Administrative Law Judge Division in 1995 and has served continuously since that time.
·Judge Stevens listed his most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Gaffney Properties as an affiliate of Boyd Management v. Lee S. Harmon, Cherokee County Assessor, 95-ALJ- 17-0265-CC, decided November 8, 1995. This case established a new and novel method for valuing subsidized housing projects for property tax purposes. The worth is based upon the value of the rental income stream plus the value of the Government's interest subsidy plus the value of the federal income tax credits granted to owners of subsidized housing.
(b) Oncology Therapies of Greenville, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Greenville Cancer Center, and Greenville Hospital System, 96-ALJ-07-0205-CC, decided June 6, 1997. This case established that the standard of proof in a Certificate of Need (CON) case is that of the preponderance of the evidence with the Administrative Law Judge acting as the fact-finder and the DHEC Board as the appellate review authority. Further, the case established than an ALJ hearing a CON controversy does not act as a mere "reviewer" of the DHEC staff decision. Rather, the ALJ conducts a contested case in which evidence is weighed to determine whether granting or denying a CON is warranted.
(c) Medstar Ambulance Service, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 96-ALJ-07-0498-CC, decided May 6, 1997.
This case revoked an ambulance license for numerous violations of DHEC statutes and regulations and required examining dozens of licensing procedures, highway safety statutes, and rules for training, certification and personnel requirements of emergency medical technicians. The case also held the revocation proceeding need not examine under the stringent clear and convincing standard but under the less demanding standard of preponderance of the evidence.
(d) Dennison A. Royal v. Charleston County Assessor, 95- ALJ-0522-CC, decided December 12, 1995. This case found the county's property value methodology discriminated against the taxpayer in violation of the equal protection clause to the Federal and State Constitution. The assessor subjected the taxpayer to a different valuation method than other similarly situation taxpayers. This practice caused a higher value to inherently attach to the taxpayer's property and thus violated his rights to equal treatment and uniformity.
(e) A.E. Barrow, Jr. v. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control - Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, 95-ALJ-13-0612-CC (April 1, 1996). This case presented a myriad of issues in which a conclusion was reached that no statute of limitations prevented DNR or OCRM from seeking to remove a structure from a critical zone, that no ex post facto actions were taken by DNR or OCRM, that the structure was a watercraft required to be titled and registered with DNR, and that OCRM was not prohibited from requiring Barrow to remove the structure from the critical area.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Stevens' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Stevens is married to Janice Louise Shapiro Stevens and has three children: Ryan Nelson Stevens (19), Alan Austin Stevens (16), and Leah Suzanne Stevens (8).
Judge Stevens reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Richland County Bar
(c) Advisory Board to Vanderbilt University's Paul J. Hartman State Tax Forum
Judge Stevens provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) First Baptist Church, Columbia (Deacon, Sunday School teacher)
(b) Chapin Elementary PTO (Past President)
(c) Budget Advisory Committee, School District Five of Richland and Lexington Counties (Past Co-Chairman)
Judge Stevens states that he is a deacon at First Baptist Church of Columbia, a Sunday School teacher of an adult class, and serves both as an officer and as a member on numerous church committees.
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Goodstein meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Ms. Goodstein was born on December 1, 1955. She is 42 years old and a resident of Dorchester County. Ms. Goodstein provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1981.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Goodstein.
Ms. Goodstein demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Goodstein testified that she 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.
Ms. Goodstein testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Goodstein testified that she had campaign expenditures slightly over $100 and that she has made the appropriate filings.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Ms. Goodstein to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Goodstein provided that during the previous five years, she has attended the Trial Lawyers Convention and its seminars, hosted an "in-house" ethics seminar, been a lecturer for several seminars, and have attended various seminars sponsored by the South Carolina Continuing Legal Education group.
Ms. Goodstein reported that she has been part of the teaching faculty for several seminars sponsored by the National Business Institute on various topics in family law. She has also lectured to administrative groups for Dorchester School District Number Two on issues such as sexual harassment and confidentiality. Ms. Goodstein has lectured for a group sponsored by her local Chamber of Commerce on sexual harassment. She has also lectured on general topics for the Charleston County Aviation Authority and the City of Summerville Police Departments. Occasionally, she has given talks at various local civic groups.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Goodstein did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Goodstein did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Goodstein has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Goodstein was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. Goodstein reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV".
Ms. Goodstein served as Dorchester County Attorney from 1986 through 1988.
(6) Physical health:
Ms. Goodstein appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Ms. Goodstein appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Goodstein was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1981.
Since her graduation from law school, Ms. Goodstein began practice as an Associate with the firm of Goodstein, Bowling, Douglas & Phillips from 1981 through 1983. She became a partner in Goodstein & Goodstein from 1983 to the present.
Ms. Goodstein's practice has been a general one. It has progressed from one which primarily was associated with the representation of plaintiffs to one which represents now plaintiffs and defendants. In the later years, she has practiced more often in the public sector, served as Dorchester County Attorney, as General Counsel for the Charleston County Aviation Authority, and as counsel for Dorchester County School District Number Two. In her capacity as General Counsel for the Charleston County Aviation Authority, she prosecuted cases for the Charleston County Aviation Authority Police Department. In 1997, her firm began to represent the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund in cases arising in Charleston and Dorchester Counties.
Ms. Goodstein reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: An average of every six months
(b) state: An average of every two months
(c) other: Family: An average of four times monthly
Ms. Goodstein reported the percentage of her practice during the last five years as follows:
(a) civil: 50%
(b) criminal: 10%
(c) domestic: 40%
Ms. Goodstein reported the percentage of her practice in trial courts during the last five years as follows:
(a) jury: 30%
(b) non-jury: 70%
These are matters that had they been tried, would have been tried to a jury and non-jury. Of these cases approximately twenty percent (20%) actually tried.
She most often served as chief counsel.
·Ms. Goodstein listed her five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) State of South Carolina v. Sammy Lee Amaker, Case number 85-GS-18-167.
This was a high profile death penalty case in which I was associate counsel. My law partner was appointed to represent the Defendant. This matter was significant because of the requisite effort required to defend an individual under the pressures of a potential death penalty.
(b) Kelly Snowden v. William Fend, Case number 88-CP-18- 53.
Our clients' young child had been molested by a neighbor and this civil action in Common Pleas Court was brought to recover damages from the perpetrator. The case was a means for the child's parents to express their outrage. It was significant for two reasons. The victimized child was needed to testify which required great care to procure her testimony without doing her harm. It is also significant because of the amount of the verdict which was $1,350,000.00.
(c) Julian W. Rawl, as Administrator of the Estate of Edwin E. Rawl, Jr. v. United States of America, C.A. No. 2:80- 2525-2.
This matter was litigated non-jury in Federal Court and was a case brought by Julian Rawl whose parents were killed when his father's aircraft crashed. The case is significant because of the complexity of the issues involved. The Plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the air traffic controller. This matter was defended by U.S. Justice Department, Civil Division, with lead counsel from Washington.
(d) Tideland Utilities, Inc. and Earl J. DuPriest v. Sunnox, Inc. and Prillaman Chemical Co., Case Number 90-CP-18-846. This case involved a suit for damages resulting from the explosion of a chlorine canister in the Plaintiff's warehouse. A related case was filed (Tideland Utilities, Inc. and Earl J. DuPriest v. Bitimious Corporation) against the Plaintiff's liability carrier for wrongful failure to pay an insurance claim and breach of the insurance contract. The case was significant because this single event generated both a products liability action which was fairly complicated and the additional suit highlighting contractual issues with the Plaintiff's insurance carrier.
(e) State of South Carolina v. Pearless Owens.
In this criminal matter, I was co-counsel in a murder trial which tried to conclusion once resulting in a mistrial because of the jury's inability to reach a verdict; mistried a second time due to prosecutorial error; mistried due to a critical witness's emotional breakdown during the third trial and ended in a workable plea just prior to the fourth trial. The case was significant because it was extremely challenging to continue to work with the case so that the defense remained proficient and vibrant and did not become stale. It was also significant because the decedent was a family member which complicated the normally difficult issues in such a case.
·Ms. Goodstein listed five civil appeals she had personally handled:
(a) Gamble, Givens and Moody v. Moise, 288 S.C. 210, 341 S.E.2d 147, 1986
(b) Henderson v. United States, 785 F.2d 121, (4th Cir.) 1986
(c) Rawl v. United States, 778 F.2d 1009, (4th Cir.) 1985
(d) Turner v. City of North Charleston, 675 F.Supp. 314 (DCSC 1987)
(e) Blackburn and Co., Inc. v. Dudley and KTM, 298 S.C. 538, 381 S.E.2d 918, 1989
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Goodstein's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Goodstein is married to Arnold Samuel Goodstein and they have two children: Arnold Samuel Goodstein, II, age thirteen and Eve Schafer Goodstein, age nine.
Ms. Goodstein reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(c) American Bar Association
(d) Dorchester County Bar Association
(e) Women's Bar Association
(f) Charleston County Bar Association
Ms. Goodstein provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Greater Summerville Chamber of Commerce Board Member
(b) Hospice of Charleston Board Member
(c) My Sister's House Board Member
(d) Juvenile Restitution Board Member
(e) South Carolina Bar Association Professional Responsibility Committee Member
(f) First National Bank Advisory Committee Member
(g) SCANA Advisory Committee Member
(h) School Improvement Council, Rollings Elementary School
(i) Dorchester County Centennial Committee
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Horger meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Mr. Horger was born on March 27, 1953. He is 44 years old and a resident of Orangeburg County. Mr. Horger provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Horger.
Mr. Horger demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Horger 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. Horger testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Horger testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately $12 for postage and resume materials.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Horger to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Horger provided that during the previous five years, he has attended the following continuing legal education courses:
May 2, 1997 Practice and Procedure in South Carolina;
July 11, 1997 Ethics Advisor Committee Meeting;
July 25-26, 1997 Hot Topics in Insurance Issues: Sexual Harassment and Slander, Premises Liability,
Insurance Fraud: What Impact Has the New Fraud Law Had on Insurance Practices,
Workers Compensation,
Magistrate's Court - Changes in Jurisdictional Minimum - How that will Impact the Practice, and
ADR/Mediation;
May 3, 1996 Arbitration and Mediation Seminars;
July 26-27, 1997 Ethical Considerations Involved in Taking an Adverse Position Against the Insured,
Reconstructing Accidents, Both Automobile and Industrial,
Head Trauma Damage Claims,
Workers Compensation,
Ethical Issues Which May Arise in Mediation,
The Do's and Don'ts in Presenting Your Insured's Position at a Mediation, and
The Mysteries of Computer Research Revealed!;
January 6, 1995 Limited Liability Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships;
July 11, 1995 Civil Mediation Training Course;
July 28-29, 1995 Ethics - Insurers and Insureds Conflicts,
Medical Diagnostic Study,
Publications Useful to Understanding Medical Terminology and Testimony,
Business Owners Property Claims,
Ethics - Chinese Wall,
Insurance Fraud,
Mediation and Arbitration, and
Managing Litigation;
January 2, 1994 Probate, Estate Planning & Trust;
June 3, 1994 Tax Law
June 4, 1994 Law Firm Management in the 90's
July 29-30, 1994 Arbitration, Mediation, Summary Trials and Other Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques,
Ethical Concerns in Marketing Including Accepted Marketing Techniques and Gifts to Judges, Commissioners or Clients,
Different Industry Approached to the Use of Outside Counsel, and Labor/Employment Law and the Insurance Industry;
January 29, 1993 Trial & Appellate Advocacy;
July 30-31, 1993 Workers Compensation, Rule 40 and Docket Problems in the Circuit Courts, Contribution Among Joint Tort Feasors and Indemnity,
Employment Law Considerations in Workers Compensation, and Mediation;
Dec. 10, 1993 1993 This Was the Year that Was 1993.
Mr. Horger reported that as a member of the South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee, ethics issues were discussed before a class of Professor Nathan Crystal at the Law School.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Horger did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Horger did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Horger has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Horger was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Horger reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV".
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Horger appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Horger appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Horger was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Horger practiced as a partner in the firm of Horger, Horger & Barnwell focusing on real estate and civil litigation from 1977 to 1982. From 1982 to the present, he practices as a partner in the firm of Horger, Horger, Lanier, Culclasure & Knight, L.L.P., focusing on the areas of general practice, real estate, and civil litigation.
Mr. Horger reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: Approximately every six (6) months
(b) state: Typically during four out of every five weeks
Mr. Horger reported the percentage of his practice as follows:
(a) civil: Sixty (60%) Percent
(b) criminal: Five (5%) Percent
(c) domestic: Five (5%) Percent
(d) general practice: Thirty (30%) Percent
Mr. Horger reported the percentage of his practice in trial courts as follows:
(a) jury: Ninety-Five (95%) Percent
(b) non-jury: Five (5%) Percent
He most often served as sole counsel.
·Mr. Horger listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Intersystems Design and Technology v. Manville Forest Products Corporation.
Plaintiff ran a foam line assembly to produce panels and alleged the Defendant's paper product was defective resulting in production of panels with lack of flatness. I represented the Defendant which alleged the lack of flatness was due to the Plaintiff's failure to run the face material into the foam line assembly at the proper tension. After a week long trial in which the Plaintiff presented $2,059,637.00 in damages, the jury returned a verdict for the Defendant.
(b) Ayers v. First National Bank and Burgess.
I represented the Plaintiff who alleged the Defendant assumed the duty to secure title to a mobile home when it made a loan and disbursed the proceeds directly to the Seller to obtain the title to record its lien. The Seller did not provide the Title to the trailer to the Bank then the Bank denied it had any duty to the Plaintiff to secure the title to the trailer. During the trial of the case, the case was settled with the Bank releasing the Plaintiff from any obligation to repay the financed amount of $13,645.48.
(c) Lewis L. Grubbs, Jr., v. Johnny Atkinson, Carol Atkinson, and South Carolina Farm Bureau Company.
The Plaintiff took a default judgment against the Defendants, Johnny and Carol Atkinson, in the amount of $155,050.75 for injury resulting from a boating accident then brought this action to determine whether the Defendant, South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company, was obligated to pay the judgment under the Defendant Atkinson's Homeowner's Policy. I represented the Insurance Carrier, South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company. After losing the case in a non-jury trial before the Master-In-Equity for Aiken County, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fully reviewed the law and the facts and decided the insurance carrier afforded no coverage for the occurrence under its policy.
(d) Gruber v. Santee Frozen Foods, Inc. et al. .
This action went to the jury on the theory of negligent misrepresentation. The Trial Judge initially directed a verdict against Webber Farms, whom I represented, however, during the evening the Judge reconsidered his ruling and the next day reversed himself directing a verdict in favor of Webber Farms with respect to all parties. The Plaintiff and the Co-Defendant, Santee Frozen Foods, appealed from the jury verdict. The verdict was sustained on Appeal thereby affirming the Lower Courts directed verdict in favor of Webber Farms with respect to all parties.
(e) Carroll v. Guess.
I represented the Defendant Guess in an action brought against him in the alternative an unknown driver, John Doe. The Lower Court denied the Defendant Guess' Motion for Change of Venue to the county of his residence. The Court of Appeals affirming that the right of the Defendant to a trial in the county of his residence is a substantial right.
·Mr. Horger listed five civil appeals he had personally handled:
(a) Carroll v. Guess, 394 S.E.2d 707, 302 S.C. 175, Supreme Court of South Carolina, Decided August 6, 1990.
(b) Gruber v. Santee Frozen Foods, Inc., 419 S.E.2d 795, 309 S.C. 13, Court of Appeals of South Carolina, Decided May 26, 1992.
(c) Lewis L. Grubbs, Jr., v. Johnny Atkinson, Carol Atkinson, and South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company, Court of Common Pleas Aiken County, Supreme Court of South Carolina, unpublished opinion.
(d) Teorges Farmer v. Vernon D. Rhone, Court of Common Pleas Colleton County, Supreme Court of South Carolina, unpublished opinion.
(e) Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Arliss Diane Sharperson a/k/a Arliss Deputy Sharperson and Leslie Yvonne Sharperson, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, no decision has been rendered at this time.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Horger's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Horger is married to Patricia Nevils Horger and they have two children: Allison Nell Horger and Michael Pinckney Horger, Jr., both age 11.
Mr. Horger reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
- Member of House of Delegates (1991 to present)
- Member of Ethics Advisory Committee (1997- 1998)
- Chairman, Legislative Counsel Committee (1996- 1997)
- Member of Legislative Counsel Committee (1989- 1996)
- Member of Nominating Committee (1996)
- Member of Lawyers Physicians Relationship Committee (1988 to present)
- Member of Practice and Procedure Committee (1979-1982)
(b) Orangeburg County Bar Association
- President (1982-1983)
(c) South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association
(d) Defense Research Institute
(e) Association of Defense Trial Attorneys
(f) American Bar Association
- State Vice Chairman Rule & Procedures Committee (1982-1983)
Mr. Horger provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Orangeburg County Keep American Beautiful Board
(b) Orangeburg School District 5 Superintendent's Community Cabinet
(c) Downtown Orangeburg Revitalization Association.
·Mr. Horger stated, "Throughout my career, I have been motivated to serve others. I believe that I can serve the litigants in the Court System by using my legal experience to be an impartial and objective Judge. The handling of a heavy caseload through hard work, diligence and perseverance shows my industrious nature.
My 20 years of legal practice has exposed me to a variety of legal experiences. By representing criminal defendants, advising victims as to their rights, serving on a criminal jury, representing Plaintiffs and Defendants in civil cases and an extensive general practice, I have dealt with many of the issues our courts are confronted with today. These varied legal experiences have also given me the opportunity to work with a number of attorneys with many different styles and demeanors.
Even with a rigorous practice, I have supported the activities of my family and assisted in many of the activities they have pursued. This has helped me develop patience, courtesy, firmness and humility."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Walsh meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Mr. Walsh was born on April 22, 1945. He is 52 years old and a resident of Orangeburg County. Mr. Walsh provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Walsh 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. Walsh testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Walsh testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately $30 for postage.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Walsh to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Walsh provided that during the previous five years, he has completed 70.83 hours of continuing legal education and 11.8 hours in ethics in the areas of Eminent Domain and Land Valuation, Employment and Labor Law, Better Client Relations, Limited Liability Companies, Special Purpose Districts, Municipal Franchises, Administrative Law Division Procedural Rules, South Carolina Tort Claims Act, Rules of Civil Procedure, Liability for Serving Alcohol, Recognizing Hearsay, The Whistleblower Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Wetlands and Coastal Zone Management, Legal Ethics and Real Life, Sexual Harassment, The Civil Right Acts of 1991.
Mr. Walsh reported that he briefed municipal attorneys on the status of then pending litigation of City of Orangeburg v. Jones Intercable involving the entry of a municipality into cable television and the City of Orangeburg v. Southern Bell involving the requirement of a franchise to provide local telephone service in a municipality, the amount of the franchise fee and the sources of revenue on which the fee is calculated.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Walsh did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Walsh did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Walsh has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Walsh was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Walsh provided that he served in the South Carolina Air National Guard from 1968 to 1974. He received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of Sergeant.
Mr. Walsh reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV".
Mr. Walsh was appointed City Attorney for the City of Orangeburg in 1984 and he still serves in that capacity.
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Walsh appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Walsh appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Walsh was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Walsh practiced in the firm of C. Walker Limehouse, P.A. from 1971 to 1976 focusing on residential real estate and prosecution in municipal court. Mr. Walsh then practiced in the firm of Limehouse & Walsh from 1976 to 1985 with a concentration in trial work, probate, corporate, governmental law, and prosecution in municipal court. From 1985 to present, Mr. Walsh practiced in the firm of James F. Walsh, Jr., P.A. and Limehouse & Walsh, focusing on real estate with a concentration in commercial and development, probate, civil trial, governmental law, and prosecution in municipal court.
Mr. Walsh reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: no more than once a year
(b) state: monthly
(c) other: municipal and lower courts: monthly
Mr. Walsh reported the percentage of his practice during the last five years as follows:
(a) civil: 70%
(b) criminal: 30%
(c) domestic: 0%
Mr. Walsh reported the percentage of his practice in trial courts during the last five years as follows:
(a) jury: 70%
(b) non-jury: 30%
He most often served as sole counsel.
·Mr. Walsh listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Israel v. Carolina Bar-B-Que, Inc., (S.C.App) 292 S.C. 282, 356 S.E.2d 123 (1987).
This case involved the novel question as to whether or not an adjoining property owner with knowledge of a defective or unsound natural tree on his property is liable for injuries to an invitee of the adjacent property owner sustained as the result of the fall of said defective tree and is still cited as authority in Am Jur 2d, Premises Liability, Sec.690. (Represented Israel)
(b) City of Orangeburg v. Carter, 303 S.C.291, 400 S.E.2d 141 (S.C. 1991).
This case is often cited for the proposition that the prosecution does not have to prove impairment of both the mental and physical faculties of a defendant to sustain a conviction of driving under the influence. (Represented City of Orangeburg)
(c) Culler v. Helena Chemical Company. This case is significant to me because I represented the Plaintiff and obtained what I believe is still the largest jury verdict in an agricultural crop loss case in Orangeburg County. (Represented Culler).
(d) Sheppard v. City of Orangeburg, ___ S.C. ____, 442 S.E.2d 601 (S.C. 1994). This case had statewide significance because the Court held that municipalities in South Carolina do not have constitutional nor statutory authority to own and operate a cable television system. (Represented City of Orangeburg with co-counsel)
(e) Owens, et al. v. City Council of Orangeburg, South Carolina, et al. This case was significant to me because it established single-member electoral districts in the City of Orangeburg and I am of the opinion that as City Attorney I played a role in the smooth and orderly transition of government and the public's acceptance of same. (Represented City of Orangeburg with co-counsel)
·Mr. Walsh listed five civil appeals he personally handled:
(a) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Martell, 279 S.C. 289, 307 S.E.2d 601(S.C.1983).
(b) Israel v. Carolina Bar-B-Que, Inc., 292 S.C. 282, 356 S.E.2d 123 (S.C.1987).
(c) City of Orangeburg v. Carter, 303 S.C. 291, 400 S.E.2d 141 (S.C.1991).
(d) Barton v. Superior Motors, Inc., 309 S.C. 491, 424 S.E.2d 524 (S.C.App.1992).
(e) McCallum v. Bookhart, (unpublished) (1995)
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Walsh's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Walsh is married to Chris Limehouse Walsh and they have two children: Kathryn Eliza Walsh, age 26, who is employed with Loving Choice Adoption Agency in Charleston and Clare Phillips Walsh, age 22, a law student at the University of South Carolina.
Mr. Walsh reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) American Bar Association
(c) Orangeburg County Bar Association (President 1979- 1981)
(d) International Municipal Lawyers Association
(e) South Carolina Municipal Attorneys Association (Director 1996-present)
(f) Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (Supreme Court 1980-1983; Special Appointment 1996)
Mr. Walsh provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Kiwanis Club
(b) Circuit Vice-President, University of South Carolina Alumni Association
·Mr. Walsh stated, "I have practiced law for twenty-six years in a small firm and have held the position of City Attorney for the City of Orangeburg for the past twelve years. Before being appointed City Attorney, my partner, C. Walker Limehouse, held the position and I served as Assistant City Attorney. Practicing in a small firm, I have represented parties in all areas of the law and have gained extensive knowledge in governmental law as City Attorney. As City Attorney, I also prosecute and schedule all jury trial cases in Municipal Court dealing directly with lawyers and pro se parties. I believe that it is important that a judge have some experience in all areas and be able to communicate with both lawyers, parties and court personnel. I have done so and my record will reflect that I have done so with patience, courtesy and respect for all, regardless of economic status, race, gender or education."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Peeples meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Judge Peeples was born on January 8,1940. He is 58 years old and a resident of Hampton County. Judge Peeples provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1964.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation revealed that Judge Peeples was publicly reprimanded in 1988. The case is entitled In the Matter of Rodney A. Peeples, 374 S.E.2d 674 (1988). The Supreme Court held that Judge Peeples was guilty of the following misconduct: (1) while an attorney, he prepared a will naming his daughters beneficiaries without making a full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest; (2) in attempting to collect $300 payments, he lent the prestige of his office to advance the interests of another; (3) he engaged in the practice of law.
The Commission concluded that this reprimand does not preclude Judge Peeples from being re-elected.
Judge Peeples 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 Peeples testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Peeples testified that he had not made any campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Peeples to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Peeples provided that he is an avid supporter of judicial continuing legal education. During the previous five years he has greatly exceeded the 15 hour minimum attendance of JCLE's. Additionally, Judge Peeples has served on the Board of Trustees of the National Judicial College from 1989-July 12, 1997. During that time he helped plan curriculum and select faculty and served as Chair of the Academic committee.
Judge Peeples reported that he had lectured numerous times on a wide variety of legal and judicial issues over the last five years.
Judge Peeples reported that he has co-authored the following book:
Ethics for Judges - National Judicial College Publication - 1982. This book was used in the General Jurisdiction Courses for all new Judges at the National Judicial College located at the University of Nevada, Reno.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Peeples did not reveal any evidence of grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Peeples did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Peeples has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Peeples was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Peeples reported that as a member of the judiciary for twenty-three years, and because he did not practice law for the requisite 10 years to receive an individual rating, he did not have a rating. However, the firm with which he practiced was rated "AV" in Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Peeples appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Peeples appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Peeples was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1964.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Peeples has practiced law with the firm of Blatt and Fales in Barnwell, S.C.; in 1966 he became a partner with the law firm of Blatt, Fales and Peeples and continued until December 4, 1974; on December 5, 1974, until present he has been a Resident Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit.
·Judge Peeples listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Joseph Carl Shaw vs. State of S.C., 276 S.C. 190, 277 S.E.2d 140 (1981)
This was a high profile death penalty case in Richland County in which I presided in the nonjury trial for Post Conviction Relief. I issued a twenty-eight (28) page order that was affirmed by the S.C. Supreme Court, U.S. District Federal Court, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result Shaw was the first criminal defendant electrocuted in South Carolina since the reinstatement of the death penalty in South Carolina in 1977.
(b) Nichols vs. State Farm, 279 S.C. 336, 306 S.E.2d 616 (1983)
This was a case brought by the insured against the insurer for bad faith refusal to pay first-party benefits, and this novel issue was presented at trial in Aiken County. The S.C. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed my ruling which recognized, for the first time in South Carolina, a direct cause of action for bad faith to pay first-party benefits under a liability insurance policy.
(c) Casey vs, Richland County Council, 282 S.C. 387, 320 S.E.2d 443 (S.C. 1984)
As Acting Associate Justice, I wrote this unanimous Supreme Court opinion. The case, heard in June of 1984, held that a surcharge levied by Richland County violated the Equal Protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions, and also concluded the proposed surcharge was a tax rather than an assessment.
(d) Graham vs. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (S.C. 1984)
I was the Trial Judge in this negligence action in Horry County which recognized, for the first time in South Carolina, the granting of a new trial nisi additur for damages or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The S.C. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed my ruling.
(e) State Farm vs. Wannamaker, 291 S.C. 518, 354 S.E.2d 555 (S.C. 1987)
In this declaratory judgment action from Greenville County to determine if underinsured motorist coverage was available to an insured for the death of his daughter, as Acting Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, I authored a unanimous opinion which set forth the standard insurers must meet in offering underinsured coverage to its policy holders. The case further held that under the particular facts of the case, the insured was entitled to coverage but could not stack his underinsured coverage.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
Mr. Fletcher Mann, the Greenville County Clerk of Court filed an affidavit in opposition to Judge Peeples' candidacy. There were also five other affidavits filed in opposition to Judge Peeples' candidacy from various employees in Mr. Mann's office.
The gravamen of those complaints was that:
(1) Judge Peeples did not operate under procedures adopted by the Greenville County Clerk of Court office;
(2) Judge Peeples was absent from the bench more than customary for a visiting judge; and
(3) Judge Peeples was rude and abusive in his dealings with court personnel.
The Commission heard full testimony from Mr. Mann and the other affiants concerning these allegations. The Commission then allowed Judge Peeples to respond to each allegation. After hearing the testimony, the Commission was satisfied with Judge Peeples' responses and finds that Judge Peeples did not violate any of the Canons of Judicial Conduct or any other applicable rules governing judicial behavior. In addition, after a full hearing on the issue of absenteeism, the Commission found no problem in fact existed. Therefore, the Commission finds that Judge Peeples is qualified for continued judicial service.
Mr. Mann's allegations and Judge Peeples' response thereto are contained verbatim in the Commission's hearing transcript and can be referenced therein.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Peeples is married to Claudia Glenn Waites Peeples and has two children: Janie Peeples Lane (age 31, Director of Human Resources for Affinity Technologies, Inc.) and Katie Peeples Cate (age 27, full-time mother and housewife).
Judge Peeples reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) Barnwell County Bar Association, 1964-present
(b) South Carolina Bar Association, 1964-present
(c) American Bar Association, 1964- resent; Judicial Member of Board of Governors, 1988-91; Member of House of Delegates, 1988-93
(d) American Judges Association, 1988-present
(e) Chairman - National Conference of State Trial Judges in U.S., 1985-86
(f) Member - The National Judicial College Board of Trustees, 1989-97; Chairman, 1992-94
(g) American Judicature Society, 1981-present; Member of Board of Directors, 1986-89
(h) State Justice Institute Board of Directors, 1985- 89; Vice Chairman, 1985-87
Judge Peeples provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) First Baptist of Barnwell
(b) Mason Harmony Lodge No. 17, A.F.M.
(c) Member of Board of Visitors of Clemson University, 1987-1989
(d) Member of Columbia College Parents Advisory Council, 1987-91
(e) Friends of State Museum
(f) River Banks Zoo Society
(g) U.S.C. Alumni Association
(h) Carolina Gamecock Club
(I) S.C. Historical Society
(j) University of South Caroliniana Society
(k) Friends of Barnwell County Library
(l) Hampton County Cemetery Association
(m) Barnwell Warhorse Club
(n) U.S.C. Educational Foundation
(o) Mental Health Association of Barnwell County
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cooper meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Judge Cooper was born on May 20, 1941. He is 56 years old and a resident of Clarendon County. Judge Cooper provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cooper.
Judge Cooper demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Cooper 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 Cooper testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Cooper testified that he had not made any campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Cooper to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Cooper has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Cooper provided that during the previous five years he had attended the Judicial College in Reno, Nevada and has attended all of the mandatory JCLE seminars. In addition he as attended the Annual Circuit Judges Association Convention and served as an instructor in the New Judge's School. Judge Cooper also serves as chairman of the Circuit Court Judges Advisory Committee.
Judge Cooper reported that he had lectured numerous times on a wide variety of legal and judicial issues over the last five years.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Cooper did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cooper did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cooper has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Cooper was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Cooper reported that as a member of the judiciary for five years, and his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
Judge Cooper has never sought elective office but was appointed to the Clarendon County Election Commission in 1988.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Cooper appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Cooper appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Cooper was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Cooper began practicing law with a sole practitioner W.C. Coffey Jr.; In August of 1974, Judge Cooper became a partner in that firm; he served as a Special Referee to hear contested Non-Jury matters in Clarendon and Sumter counties; and he was elected to the Third Judicial Circuit in 1992.
·Judge Cooper listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Abbeville County School District, et al. v. State of South Carolina, et al. 93-CP-31-169 - On appeal.
(b) Dr. William Gray, Apellant v. State Farm Auto Insurance Company, Respondent, William Gray, C.C., and Robin Ivey, D.C., Appellants v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Penny Miller Insurance Co., Respondent
(94-CP-40-3763) Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 2705
Heard May 7, 1997 - Filed July 28, 1997
(c) John Nowlin, Appellant v. General Telephone Company, Respondent
The Supreme Court, Opinion No. 97-MO-029
Heard November 21, 1996 - Filed April 14, 1997
(d) William K. Stephen, Employee, Appellant v. Avins Construction Company, Employer and Bituminous Insurance Company, Carrier, Respondent.
Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 2570
Heard September 11, 1996 - Filed October 7, 1996
(e) James Franklin Parker, Jr., Marilyn Marie Parker, and Eva Marie Parker, Apellants v. Ethel Lee Parker, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Franklin Parker, IN RE: requested adjudication that Virginia Ann Martin does not qualify as an heir of the Estate of James Franklin Parker v. Virginia Ann Martin, Respondents.
The Supreme Court, Opinion No. 24044
Heard March 3, 1994 - Filed April 4, 1994
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Cooper's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Cooper is married to Margaret Barringer Bland and has two children: Thomas Bland Cooper (age 27, a Golf Course Superintendent) and Judith Margaret Cooper (age 22, a Sales Representative for Jostens).
Judge Cooper reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Clarendon County Bar Association - Inactive
Judge Cooper provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; served at both the Presbytery and General Assembly levels of the church
(b) Board of Trustees of Manning Educational Association, Inc., the governing body of Laurence Manning Academy
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Burch meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Judge Burch was born on February 10, 1954. He is 43 years old and a resident of Chesterfield County. Judge Burch provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Burch.
Judge Burch demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Burch testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
Judge Burch 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 Burch testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Burch to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Burch provided that he attended all CLE courses for Circuit Judges as well as all annual Judicial Conferences and Circuit Court Judges meetings. Additionally, he attended the Advance Evidence Course offered by the National Judicial College and had been a guest commentator at the South Carolina Solicitor's Conference in 1995 and 1997.
Judge Burch taught undergraduate level courses for the University of South Carolina over a thirteen-year period including: Business Law; Criminal Law and Procedure; Police Administration; Introduction to Criminal Justice; Criminal Investigation; and a Seminar in Criminal Justice.
Judge Burch reported extra-judicial involvement as an active member in the Pageland United Methodist Church and the Pageland Volunteer Fire Department. He says he does not use his judicial office to further these interests.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Burch did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Burch has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Burch reported that he has never subscribed to Martindale- Hubbell and has no current rating.
Judge Burch was elected to served on the Chesterfield County Council as a member, from 1983 to 1988 and as Vice Chairman from 1987 to 1988. Also, he was elected to serve in the South Carolina House of Representatives District #51 from 1988 to 1991.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Burch appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Burch appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Burch was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.
Since graduation from law school, Judge Burch practiced law as a solo practitioner in Pageland, SC, from November 12, 1980 until June 30, 1991. His practice included civil litigation, criminal defense, criminal prosecution, domestic, social security, and real estate matters. Judge Burch began serving on the Circuit Court in July 1, 1991, he currently serves in that judicial office.
·Judge Burch listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Carolina Light & Power Company v. The City of Bennettsville and Marlboro Electric Cooperative, Inc., 314 S.C. 137, 442 S.E.2d 177 (1994) (affirmed by Supreme Court);
(b) Chip Knoke, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeremy Ryan Knoke v. The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, _______ S.C. ______, 478 S.E.2d 256 (1996) (affirmed by Supreme Court);
(c) Darlington County School District v. Cedric Washington;
(d) State of South Carolina v. Warren Douglas Manning;
(e) Glenn P. Tallent and Christopher C. King v. Solid Waste Recycling Disposal User Fee Appeals Board of the County of Chester County, Chester County Council, Treasurer of Chester County, and Chester County Tax Assessor, individually, and in their official capacity.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Burch's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Burch is married to Kimberly Thomas Burch and has three children: Kendall Renee Burch, age 15, Ashley Lee Burch, age 11, and Paul Michael Burch, Jr., age 7.
Judge Burch reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Chesterfield County Bar Association
Judge Burch reported that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Pageland United Methodist Church (Administrative Board, At-Large member and Past Chairman of Board of Trustees)
(b) Mt. Moriah Masonic Lodge #58 (Past Master)
(c) Jamil Shrine Temple
(d) Sandhill Shrine Club
(e) Sandhill Ducks Unlimited
·Judge Burch stated, "I am a life-long resident of South Carolina and after having served the past fourteen years as an elected official, I sincerely hope that I have the public's trust and confidence to continue to hold judicial office."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hall meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Judge Hall was born on May 20, 1943. He is 54 years old and a resident of Anderson County. Judge Hall provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1972.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hall.
Judge Hall demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Hall 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 Hall testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Hall testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately $14.28.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Hall to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Hall has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Hall provided that during the previous five years he had attended the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada for three weeks in 1992 and has attended numerous legal/judicial seminars conducted at the University of South Carolina Law School and in other locations. Judge Hall, since 1986, has exceeded the annual requirements for judicial continuing legal education.
Judge Hall reported that he had lectured numerous times on a wide variety of legal and judicial issues over the last five years.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Hall did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hall did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hall has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Hall was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Hall reported that he has been a member of the judiciary for eleven years, and has not received a Martindale-Hubbell rating because he is a Judge.
Judge Hall served in the Army National Guard of South Carolina from 1968 to 1974. He received an Honorable Discharge.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Hall appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Hall appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Hall was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1972.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Hall has practiced law with Anderson, Kenyon and Epps from 1971 until 1973; with Hall and McClain from 1973 to 1979; as Municipal Judge of Anderson from 1974 to 1976 (concurrent to law practice); as Assistant Solicitor of the Tenth Circuit from 1976 to 1980 (concurrent with law practice); with the Hall Law Firm from 1979 to 1986; as Family Court Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3 from 1986 to 1991; and as a Circuit Court Judge from 1991 to present.
·Judge Hall listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Ken Moorhead Oil Company v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, (Anderson County Court of Common Pleas), affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court, Opinion Number 24498, filed September 23, 1996.
(b) Jeffrey H. Lerer v. Thompson and Hutson, et al., (Greenville County Court of Common Pleas) affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion Number 96-UP-081, filed March 20, 1996.
(c) Ella Bagwell v. Louis A. Tollison, et al., (Anderson County Court of Common Pleas), 91-CP-04-1784) Settled while on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Docket Number 94-217.
(d) Rodney McNeil and Sandra McNeil v. Blythewood Oil Company, Inc. and David Brissey, (Richland County Court of Common Pleas), 92-CP-40-1939.
(e) The State v. Blondell Mahoney Edwards, (Greenville County Court of General Sessions) affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion Number 95-UP-313, filed November 30,1995
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Hall's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Hall is married to Lily-Roland Hall and has no children.
Judge Hall reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) American Bar Association
(c) Anderson County Bar Association
(d) Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia
(e) Anderson Inn of Court, Co-Founder
Judge Hall provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Anderson County Court Authority - Ex Officio Member - Construct New Courthouse
(b) Electric City Sertoma Club (inactive)
(c) Anderson County Art Council
(d) Anderson County Historical Society
(e) University of South Carolina Alumni Association, life member
(f) First Baptist Church, Anderson, South Carolina
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Floyd meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Judge Floyd was born on November 5, 1947. He is 50 years old and a resident of Pickens County. Judge Floyd provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Floyd.
Judge Floyd demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Floyd 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 Floyd testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Floyd testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately $30.00. This cost included total anticipated costs to complete the application.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Floyd to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Floyd provided that during the previous five years he had attended the National Judicial College General Jurisdiction Course and has attended numerous legal/judicial seminars conducted at the University of South Carolina Law School and in other locations, including the University of Minnesota Law School 1996 Sentencing Workshop and the National Mass Tort Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Judge Floyd reported that he had lectured numerous times on a wide variety of legal and judicial issues over the last five years.
Judge Floyd reported that he has written and published numerous articles for S.C. Bar C.L.E. presentations, including the following:
(a) Comparative Negligence: Friend or Foe?, published by the CLE Division of the South Carolina Bar.
(b) Post Trial Procedures: Punitive Damage Award Review, Motions for New Trail Nisi, and Motions for a New Trial Absolute, published by the CLE Division of the South Carolina Bar.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Floyd did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Floyd did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Floyd has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Floyd was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Floyd reported that as a member of the judiciary for five years, his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV" in 1992.
Judge Floyd was in ROTC at Wofford College and commissioned as a 2d Lt. in the U.S. Army in May 1970. He served in reserved status from 1970-74, except for three months of active service from August 1973 to November 1973. He received an Honorable Discharge.
Judge Floyd served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1972 until 1978. He also was appointed by the Governor to the S.C. Forestry Commission from 1979 until 1990.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Floyd appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Floyd appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Floyd was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Floyd has practiced law as a solo practitioner from 1973-1974; with Floyd & Welmaker from 1974-1977; with Acker, Acker, Floyd & Welmaker, P.A. from 1978-1992; and as a Circuit Court Judge from 1992-present.
·Judge Floyd listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Holden, Hunt, et al. v. Alice Manufacturing, Inc., 452 S.E.2d 628, 317 S.C. 215, (Ct. App. 1994)
(b) Glover v. Suitt Construction Co., 458 S.E.2d 535, 318 S.C. 465 (1995)
(c) Diamonds, Jack Galardi, and Michael Cannon v. Greenville County, S.C.S.Ct. Op. #24567, filed 1/27/97. (not yet reported)
(d) Hanahan v. Simpson, S.C.S.Ct. Op. #24617, filed 5/12/97. (not yet reported)
(e) Breast Implant Litigation Case Management Order as approved by Chief Justice Finney for the coordination of all breast implant litigation in S.C. Order submitted as a model for handling complex litigation involving the potential for 1000 or more suits.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Floyd's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Floyd is married to Ruth Elizabeth Hunt Floyd and has two children: Henry F. Floyd, Jr. (age 23, an Assistant Greens Superintendent) and Elizabeth S. Floyd (age 19, a student at the University of South Carolina).
Judge Floyd reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) American Bar Association
(c) Pickens County Bar Association
(d) Greenville County Bar Association
(e) American Judicature Society
(f) South Carolina Circuit Judges Association, President 1995-97
Judge Floyd provided that he is President of the S.C. Judicial Invitational Golf Tournament (President 1995 - present).
·Judge Floyd stated, "I certainly hope there is nothing negative. On a positive note, I have tried to work hard and be involved with activities affecting circuit judges. I have just completed a two year term as President of the S.C. Circuit Judge's Association. I currently serve on the Circuit Judges Advisory Commission and the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct. Since January 1993 I have continuously served in some circuit as a Chief Administrative Judge. Finally, I serve as the statewide coordinating judge for breast implant litigation and it is expected that I will manage on a pre-trial basis somewhere between 500-1500 cases over the life of the litigation."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Kittredge meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Judge Kittredge was born on September 28, 1956. He is 41 years old and a resident of Greenville County. Judge Kittredge provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
( 2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Kittredge.
Judge Kittredge demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Kittredge reported that he used his state-issued computer and administrative assistant in completing the judicial forms. He paid his staff $30.00 and the work was not done during normal working hours.
Judge Kittredge has made the following campaign expenditures: Postage ($54.40), Copy Paper ($4.09), Envelopes ($4.56), Secretarial Assistance ($30.00).
Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Kittredge to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Kittredge has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Kittredge provided that during the previous five years he has exceeded all JCLE and CLE requirements. Judges are required to complete 15 hours of "JCLE" yearly. From January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1996, he completed 197 hours of continuing legal education although only 75 hours were required. This includes courses sponsored by the National Judicial College.
Judge Kittredge reported that he has been interviewed for television regarding emerging legal issues on numerous occasions. Also, Judge Kittredge reported that he had lectured or taught the following CLE or Judicial Education Programs:
(a) Family Law Update, December 1991; CLE
(b) Family Law Seminar "Comments from the Bench", August 1992
(c) Ethics and Family Court, October 1992; CLE
(d) Family Court Bench/Bar Fall Update, November 1992; JCLE
(e) "Reasonable Efforts" Seminar, December 1993; JCLE
(f) Private Adoptions, April 1994
(g) Chief Administrative Judge's School, June 1997
(h) Annual Judicial Conference, August 1997
(i) Domestic Violence: Breaking the Cycle, Sponsored by the Woman's Pavilion of the Greenville Memorial Hospital, March 12, 1992
(j) Private Violence, Sponsored by the Greenville Area Health Education Center, November 6, 1992
(k) Young Fathers: A Community Problem In Search of a Community Solution, Sponsored by the Greenville Council for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy, July 29, 1994
(l) Leadership South Carolina's Annual Program, Kiawah Island, February 4, 1995
Judge Kittredge reported he has written The Inevitability of Police Discretion, published by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association magazine. The exact date of publication is unknown, probably 1978. He also wrote an article on juvenile justice published in The Greenville News on December 20, 1992.
Judge Kittredge reported that he has spoken at numerous community functions on legal topics such as teen pregnancy, domestic violence, alcohol use among juveniles, juvenile crime, etc.
Judge Kittredge stated that like all judges (especially Family Court Judges), he is sure he has been criticized. He stated he has always tried his best to be courteous to litigants and attorneys and asks for his rating from the 1994 judicial survey from the South Carolina Bar be reviewed.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittredge did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittredge did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kittredge has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Kittredge was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Kittredge reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Judge Kittredge appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Kittredge appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Kittredge was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Kittredge served as a law clerk to the Honorable William W. Wilkins, Jr., United State District Judge from 1982 through 1984. From 1984 until 1991, he worked at the firm of Wilkins, Nelson & Kittredge in litigation. He also worked part-time as Assistant Solicitor from September 1984 until July 1985 and again for a brief period in 1986. He was elected to the family court bench in May 1991 and was reelected in May 1995. He was elected to the Circuit Court bench (At-Large Seat 11) in February 1996 and has served continuously since that time.
Judge Kittredge reported that he was elected by the General Assembly to the Family Court bench on May 8, 1991, and reelected in May 1995. His service as a family court judge began on July 1, 1991. He served continuously as administrative judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit from July 1992 through June 1995. The family court is a court of limited jurisdiction; it is a statutory court. He was elected to the circuit court bench on February 14, 1996, At- Large Seat 11. He presently serves as the Chief Administrative Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for the Thirteenth Circuit.
·Judge Kittredge listed his most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) In Re Andrea W. - Dozens of juveniles were arrested for violating an anti-picketing ordinance of the City of Greenville. I found the city ordinance unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against all juveniles.
(b) Allen v. Coggins - A custody case involving the right of a custodial parent to move with the child to another state.
(c) Doe v. Brown - I terminated the father's parental rights and granted the adoption. The child was conceived in a rape. The Supreme Court affirmed in opinion #24680 filed September 2, 1997.
(d) Danielson v. Danielson - Party sought relief from judgment pursuant to S.C.R.C.P. 60(b3). The case involved analysis of fraud necessary to warrant relief from judgment, i.e., intrinsic fraud versus extrinsic fraud. The Court of Appeals affirmed in opinion #95-UP-066.
(e) In the Matter of M, a minor - Termination of parental rights case arises from abuse and failure to comply with court ordered treatment plan. The Court of Appeals affirmed in opinion #2115, filed January 5, 1994.
(f) City of Columbia v. Rothschild
(g) City of Columbia v. Chippendolls - Companion cases involving constitutionality of zoning ordinance on sexually oriented businesses. Cases are on appeal.
(h) Simpson Enterprises v. Hanahan et al. - Complex nonjury matter involving corporate law, etc. Case is on appeal.
(I) City of Easley v. Portman - Mr. Portman was convicted of DUI in municipal court. I heard the circuit court appeal. The appeal involved a substantial legal issue of corpus delicti. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a two to one decision, opinion #2698, filed July 21, 1997.
Judge Kittredge served as a Family Court Judge from July 1, 1991, through April 1996 and since April of 1996 he has served as a Circuit Court judge.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Kittredge's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Kittredge is married with three children: Lila Marian Kittredge (age 13), John Williamson Kittredge, Jr. (age 10), and Zay Jeffries Kittredge, II (age 10).
Judge Kittredge stated that he was involved in the following associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar, 1982-present
(b) Greenville County Bar, 1981-present
(c) District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar, 1986 (presently on inactive status)
Judge Kittredge stated that he is a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
(a) First Presbyterian Church of Greenville
(b) Crimestoppers of Greenville (President)
(c) Greenville City Civil Service Commission (Chairman)
(d) Greenville Tech Foundation, Inc (Vice-President)
(e) Greenville Country Club (Member)
(f) Poinsett Club (Member, resigned)
(g) Governor's Committee on Crime, Criminal Justice and Delinquency (Member)
(h) Appointed by Governor to Joint Legislative Committee on Children
(i) Greenville Technical College Paralegal Advisory Committee
(j) Christian Legal Society
(k) Child Evangelism Fellowship
(l) Commerce Club
·Judge Kittredge stated, "I remain qualified to serve as a Resident Circuit Court Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. I have served for more than six years as a state trial judge, five years in Family Court and approximately one and a half years on the Circuit Court Bench. (I presently serve as an at large Circuit Judge.) My academic background includes summa cum laude (undergraduate), Phi Beta Kappa, Order of the COIF, Wig and Robe, et cetera. I have completed far more than the required number of continuing legal education hours. I have participated in many legal conferences and related educational programs. I served continuously for three years as Chief Administrative Judge for the Thirteenth Circuit in Family Court. I received very favorable ratings in the 1994 judicial survey conducted by the South Carolina Bar Association. As Administrative Judge in Family Court, I formed an Ad Hoc Committee of Family Court lawyers who met monthly with me; this committee facilitated open and honest communication between the bench and the bar. This committee has made numerous contributions to the operation of Family Court, including the docketing and scheduling of cases. As a Circuit Judge, I am now in the process of forming Circuit Court Bench/Bar committees in Greenville and Pickens Counties. I presently serve as the Chief Administrative Judge for Common Pleas in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. I have also been assigned by the Chief Justice on several occasions to sit with the South Carolina Supreme Court. I genuinely believe I am qualified to serve as a Resident Circuit Judge of the Thirteenth Circuit."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Floyd meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Judge Floyd was born on August 25, 1929. He is 68 years old and a resident of Horry County. Judge Floyd provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1956.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Floyd.
Judge Floyd demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Floyd reported that in 1958 or 1959, he signed as guarantor on a note to a bank in Timmonsville for his brother-in-law. The bank commenced action and Judge Floyd paid off the note immediately after service and the action was concluded.
Judge Floyd 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 Floyd testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Floyd testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Floyd to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Floyd provided that during the previous five years, he has attended the required judicial continuing legal education courses offered in South Carolina.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Floyd did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Floyd did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Floyd has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Floyd was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Floyd provided that he served in the United States Army during the Korean Conflict from 1951 through 1953. He received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of Private First Class.
Judge Floyd served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1969 until 1976.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Floyd appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Floyd appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Floyd was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1956.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Floyd entered private practice from 1956 until 1977. He served as a City Recorder from 1958 until 1963. He also served as United States Commissioner from 1964 until 1967. He is presently a Circuit Court Judge and he has held that position since 1977.
·Judge Floyd listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Carl J. Ward & William E. Ward v. Daniel L. Patrick, et al., 90-CP-26-2391 on file Horry County Clerk of Court's Office
(b) State v. Lee, 393 S.C. 536
(c) State v. Howard, 296 S.C. 481
(d) Bob Moore, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, et al., 97-CP-22-269
(e) H. Eric Estes v. City of N. Myrtle Beach Board of Zoning Appeals, 97-CP-26-0076
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Floyd's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Floyd is married to Anne Skinner Floyd and they have four children: William T. Floyd, a lawyer, age 33; Anita Ruth Floyd, a lawyer, age 36; Patricia Goldfinch, a teacher, age 37; and Francis F. Dennis, a teacher, age 34.
Judge Floyd reported that he was member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Horry County Bar Association
(c) American Bar Association
Judge Floyd provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) First Baptist Church
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hayes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Judge Hayes was born on October 18, 1945. He is 52 years old and resident of York County. Judge Hayes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hayes.
Judge Hayes demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Hayes 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 Hayes testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Hayes testified that he had campaign expenditures under the reporting requirement of $100.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Hayes to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Hayes has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Hayes provided that during the previous five years, he has attended the required judicial continuing legal education courses. He has also attended the National Judicial College.
Judge Hayes reported that he has participated as a speaker at the 1996 Update continuing legal education course.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Hayes did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hayes did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hayes has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Hayes was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Hayes provided that he served in the United States Army Reserve from 1968 until 1974. He received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of E-6.
Judge Hayes reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV".
Judge Hayes reported that he was appointed as Solicitor for the City of Rock Hill for approximately one year. He served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1980 until 1984. He then served in the South Carolina Senate from 1984 until 1991. He also served on the South Carolina Coastal Council representing the Fifth Congressional District from 1980 until 1991. He served as chairman in this capacity from 1987 until 1991.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Hayes appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Hayes appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Hayes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
Since his graduation from law school, he served as a law clerk for Chief Justice Joseph R. Moss from 1971 until 1972. From 1972 until 1991, he practiced in the firm of Hayes, Brunson, and Gatlin. His practice was comprised of general practice cases, litigation, family court, criminal court, workers' compensation, social security, wills, and real property.
Since 1991, Judge Hayes has served as a Circuit Court Judge for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit.
·Judge Hayes listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) State v. Sterling B. Spann, New Trial, death penalty
(b) Glaze v. Grooms, Town of James Island Incorporation
(c) In Re: The State of S.C. v. John Doe, Petition to Supreme Court Denied by Letter
(d) Moore v. Simpson, Opinion No. 2546 (1996)
(e) Norman v. City of Rock Hill, Unpublished Op. No. 94- UP-221.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Hayes' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Hayes is married to Sarah Lynn Hayes. Judge Hayes has three children and three stepchildren: John C. Hayes, IV, a congressional aide, age 26; Mary Scott Hayes, sales, age 23; Frances Green Hayes, a student, age 21; Matthew Bowen Nance, a student, age 21; Jessica Dorsey Nance, a student, age 19; and Albert Tyler Nance, a student, age 7.
Judge Hayes reported that he was divorced in 1990 on the grounds of a one-year separation. He was the moving party.
Judge Hayes reported that he was member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association.
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Alford meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Judge Alford was born on May 16, 1942. He is 55 years old and a resident of York County. Judge Alford provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Alford.
Judge Alford demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Alford also provided that he is an active member of the Trinity United Methodist Church where he has taught Adult Sunday School for more than 20 years. He has also served on the Administrative Board, Board of Trustees and as President of the Men's Club, Lay Leader, Lay Speaker, Chairman of the Pastor Parish Relations Committee, Trustee, and Lay Representative to the Annual Conference of the South Carolina United Methodist Church. Judge Alford coached youth basketball in the Rock Hill Church League for a number of years as well.
Judge Alford 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 Alford testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Alford testified that he had campaign expenditures under the reporting requirement of $100.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Alford to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Alford provided that during the previous five years, he has attended the following continuing legal education courses:
1/97 Training for Chief Administrative Family Court Judges
3/97 State Conference of Juvenile Justice Councils
5/97 Family Court Judge's Conference and Training
8/97 State Judicial Conference and Training
6/96 Family Court Judge's Conference and Training
8/96 State Judicial Conference and Training
12/96 Family Practice Update
4/95 Disproportionate Minority Confinement Policy Development
6/95 S.C. Family Court Judges Conference and Training
8/95 S.C. Judicial Conference and Training
9/95 S.C. Tort Law Update
2/94 Bench/Bar Conference on Child Welfare Reform
4/94 Private Adoptions
5/94 Domestic Practice: More Hot Tips from the Experts
6/94 Special Bench/Bar Symposium - Lawyers Caring About Kids
8/94 Juvenile Crime: A Special Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar
8/94 Judicial Conference
9/94 Federal Indian Child Welfare Act and Defendants, Victims, and Witnesses with Mental Retardation
6/93 Family Court Judicial Conference
8/93 Judicial Conference
11/93 Child Abuse
12/93 Children's Issues.
Judge Alford reported that he has served as speaker for several judicial continuing legal education courses for South Carolina Probate Judges and a three-day training session for New Probate Judges. Topics have included: Conducting a Jury Trial; Probate Court Jurisdiction; Trusts and Annual Update of Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Probate Courts.
Judge Alford was a speaker at the South Carolina Banker's Association about the new South Carolina Probate Code. He has also presented materials at several South Carolina Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Seminars on the South Carolina Probate Code. At one seminar, he presented materials on the South Carolina Probate Practice Manual on the subject of legislative changes to claims procedures in probate estate in light of Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope, 108 S.Ct. 1340.
Judge Alford reported that he served as a moderator for a Continuing Legal Education Seminar at Winthrop University for the South Carolina Bar and Certified Public Accountants on the South Carolina Probate Code. He also spoke at a training session for Chief Administrative Family Court Judges sponsored by the South Carolina Court Administration in January of 1997 and received two hours of CLE teaching credits.
Judge Alford reported that he spoke at the 42nd Annual Conference of the Blue Ridge Institute for Juvenile and Family Court Judges in August 1996 on the work of the Bench-Bar Committee as a part of families and kids project founded by the Kellogg Foundation and the 1996 Childrens' Code Reform Act, which grew out of the work of the committee. This conference was sponsored by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Judge Alford also reported that he spoke at the 43rd Annual Conference of the Blue Ridge Institute for Juvenile and Family Court Judges in August 1997 on South Carolina's efforts to combat truancy and he gave an evaluation of the implementation of 1996 reforms to the Childrens' Code.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Alford did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Alford did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Alford has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Alford was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Alford provided that he served in the United States Air Force from 1960 until 1964. He received an Honorable Discharge.
Judge Alford reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV".
Judge Alford received "Project of the Year" awards from the York Jaycees and was named "Key Man" and "Jaycee of the Year" by that organization. He was named "Outstanding Local President" and "Outstanding State Vice President" of the South Carolina Jaycees. Judge Alford received the "York Jaycees' Distinguished Service Award" in 1976 and was named one of the "Three Outstanding Young Men in South Carolina" in 1977. He received the Rotary's highest award, "Paul Harris Fellow", from the York Rotary Club in 1989. He was named "Shriner of the Year" by the York County Crescent Shrine Club in 1989 and was York County's nominee for the "Nine Who Care Award" in 1989.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Alford appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Alford appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Alford was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
Since his graduation from law school, he was associated with an experienced attorney in the general practice of law from 1971 until 1977. He opened his own law office in 1977 focusing on a general practice of law. He served as Probate Judge for York County from 1979 until 1992. In his practice of law, he participated in criminal, civil, domestic relations, probate, and property cases. Judge Alford has served as Family Court Judge since 1992.
·Judge Alford listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) McKibben v. Estate of Blanche Crenshaw, Case No. 91ES4600344;
This case is cited because it was the first jury trial ever held in York County Probate Court. Plaintiffs contested the Will alleging mental incapacity and undue influence. The issue of undue influence was submitted to the jury which rendered a verdict for the Defendant. There was no appeal, and the lawyers involved indicated that they received a fair and impartial trial.
(b) In the Interest of Gregory Kente Neely, a minor 16 years of age, 94-JU-46-7 through 94-JU-46-12.
In the Interest of Schafig Azim El-Amin, a minor 15 years of age, 94-JU-46-1 through 94-JU-46-06.
This case reflects the harsh reality of serious juvenile crime now coming into Family Court. These juveniles were waived to General Sessions Court on charges of murder, armed robbery, etc. This was the second case where cameras were allowed into Family Court in York County.
(c) The State-Record Co, Inc. and The Greenville News, Intervenors. IN RE: SCDSS v. Susan Smith, et al. 88-DR- 44-11
In this case the news media moved to have the sealed file in the above case opened. The Order discusses the development of the law as to the openness in the Courts. The Order was not appealed. There was extraordinary media coverage.
(d) Mark Glenn v. Sandra Glenn, 94-DR-46-464.
This case was selected because of the multiplicity of issues involved. The case involved the issues of divorce, custody, visitation, division of marital property and attorney fees. It involved substantial expert testimony.
(e) Billy B. Davis v. Barbara Davis, 93-DR-46-1896.
This Decree of Separate Maintenance is included because of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) included and the unusual features of equitable distribution of marital property. These features include an executive motor home purchased at a price exceeding $100,000.00 on which $84,227.00 was owed but due to structural defect was a lemon worth no more than $15,000.00. This debt also had to be divided.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Alford's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Alford is married to Terri Dean Alford and they have two children: Matthew Lee Alford, employed at Walt Disney World, age 24; and Ross Dean Alford, age 15.
Judge Alford reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) York County Bar Association
(c) South Carolina Family Court Judge's Association.
Judge Alford provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Past President of the South Carolina United Way
(b) Past President of the Western York County United Way
(c) Community Action Vice President of the South Carolina Jaycees
(d) Past President of the York Jaycees
(e) Past President of the Greater York Chamber of Commerce
(f) Past President of the York Red Cross Chapter
(g) Past Chairman of the York County Boy Scout Council
(h) Executive Board of the Palmetto Council of Boy Scouts
(I) Past President of the York Rotary Club
(j) Past President of the York County Mental Health Association
(k) Past President of the Camp Arc Council, which established special olympics and residential camps for the mentally handicapped
(l) Past Judge Advocate for American Legion Post #34
(m) Mason
(n) Trustee and Director of the York County Crescent Shrine Club
(o) Dixie Youth Baseball Council and Coach
(p) York County Soccer League Coach
·Judge Alford stated, "As a Probate Judge, I served on the legislative study committee that drafted South Carolina's version of the Uniform Probate Code which was enacted into law by the General Assembly. I also served on the first Technical Corrections Committee for that Code. As President of the S.C. Probate Judges' Association, I requested that the Legislative-Governor's Committee on Mental Health and Mental Retardation appoint a task force to study the law concerning the involuntary commitment of persons with chronic addiction to alcohol and drugs. I served on that task force which met for one (1) year and drafted a proposed revision of those that were approved with the changes by the committee and passed into law by the General Assembly.
As a Family Court Judge, I was appointed Chief Administrative Family Court Judge for the 16th Judicial Circuit after six (6) months on the bench by Chief Justice Harwell and re-appointed continuously since by Chief Justice Chandler and Chief Justice Finney until I requested to be relieved in January, 1997.
I applied for and received a grant to study the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act and the Rights of the Mentally Retarded in Court at the National Judicial College in September, 1994. It was timely because the Catawba Indian Tribe, located primarily in York County recently receive federal recognition. Since the Federal Act supersedes state law as to foster care and adoptions, it is important for Family Court Judges to have a working knowledge of the Act. I have offered to share this information with the S.C. Bar and the S.C. Family Court Judges in CLE Seminars.
I have actively served on the Bench-Bar Subcommittee of the S.C. Families for Kids Committee which received a $100,000.00 planning grant from the Kellogg Foundation to study and recommend changes to the foster care and adoption law and procedures in S.C. This hardworking group met primarily on Saturdays in Columbia and helped draft a grant application approved by the Kellogg Foundation for $3,000,000.00 over the next three years. We are still meeting and hope to come up with recommendations that will significantly improve emergency procedures, foster care and adoption services to children who have been abused or neglected. The 1996 Children's Code Reform Act was a product of that study.
The joint training with Circuit Judges I have participated in as a Family Court Judge, my experience in conducting trials and my regular study of appellate decisions would be an asset on the Circuit Court Bench.
I have been designated by S.C. Court Administration to represent Family Court on a Court Improvement Program Grant Committee and attended a regional conference in Washington, D.C., on May 18 and 19, 1995. U.S. Congress has allocated $35,000,000.00 over a four (4) year period. The grants are designed to encourage States to study the way Court handle foster care and adoption cases and implement a plan to improve case processing.
In five and a half years in Family Court, I have missed only four days from work when I had the flu. I have been punctual and work late when necessary.
I assisted with the training for the juvenile arbitration program started by the Solicitor's Office with a grant from the Governor's Office.
I appointed an Advisory Committee which is made up of representatives of DSS, DJJ, Solicitor, Public Defender, Clerk's Office, Court Reporter, Mental Health, Police Departments, a male and female member of the York County Bar, and Piedmont Legal Services. We met three or four times a year and have been successful in streamlining the Court with improved cooperation among all of them.
I have served as Chairman of the Governor's Juvenile Council for the 16th Judicial Circuit. We have met several times and are working on goals we established.
At the request of the York County Alliance for Children and the school districts I developed forms and established Court time to conduct hearings for parents of young children who had serious truancy problems.
At the request of the York County Alliance for Children, and with the concurrence of the York County Bar Association, we made PACT classes for parents mandatory in contested custody and visitation cases."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Leiendecker meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Mr. Leiendecker was born on May 10, 1957. He is 40 years old and a resident of Dorchester County. Mr. Leiendecker provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1992.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Leiendecker.
Mr. Leiendecker demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Leiendecker 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. Leiendecker testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Leiendecker testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately $52.35.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Leiendecker to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Leiendecker provided that during the previous five years he has always taken more than the required hours of C.L.E. He has attended several seminars in the areas of domestic and family law and criminal law, as well as ethics. These seminars were produced by the SC Bar, NY Bar, National Legal Defenders Assn., and other organizations.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Leiendecker did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Leiendecker did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Leiendecker has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Leiendecker was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Leiendecker reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Leiendecker appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Leiendecker appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Leiendecker was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1992.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Leiendecker was a Law Clerk for Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court from 1983-1985. He was an associate at the Ohio law firm of Teaford, Rich Belskis, Coffman, & Wheeler from 1985-1992. Mr. Leiendecker did litigation work in the area of school board taxation, general civil, domestic and real estate. From 1993 to present, Mr. Leiendecker has been a partner in the Summerville firm of Mortimer, Leiendecker & Rose. His practice includes domestic, criminal, juvenile law, and real estate.
Mr. Leiendecker reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: average once a year.
(b) state: at least 15 to 20 days a month over the last five years.
(c) other: Magistrate and Municipal Courts - 2 or 3 times a month over last five years.
Mr. Leiendecker reported the percentage of his practice as follows:
(a) civil: 10%
(b) criminal: 40%
(c) domestic: 40%
Mr. Leiendecker reported the percentage of his practice in trial courts as follows:
(a) jury: 70% of case I tried were to a jury.
(b) non-jury: 30 % of cases I tried were to a judge of other finder of fact.
At least 90% of his total cases settled or plead before any trial. He most often served as sole counsel.
Mr. Leiendecker listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) State v. Timothy Rogers, a death penalty case, 1994 Dorchester County. Case was overturned by the SC Supreme Court on sentencing issues and sent back for retrial on sentencing.
(b) State v. Brown, a 1995 Dorchester murder case. Mr. Brown was found not guilty.
(c) State v. Carson, a 1997 Dorchester murder case. Carson found not guilty on self defense.
(d) Killingbeck v. Killingbeck, 1996 divorce case. Issues included support for college education and very messy property division issues.
Mr. Leiendecker listed no civil appeals he had personally handled.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Leiendecker's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Leiendecker is married to Cynthia Lou Leiendecker and has two children: Emily Rose Leiendecker, 21/2 years; Harrison S. Leiendecker, 16 months.
Mr. Leiendecker reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
Mr. Leiendecker provided that he was a Deacon at East Cooper Baptist Church from 1994 - 1997.
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. McLin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Ms. McLin was born on September 5, 1963. She is 34 years old and a resident of Dorchester County. Ms. McLin provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. McLin.
Ms. McLin demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. McLin testified that she 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.
Ms. McLin testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. McLin testified that she had campaign expenditures of approximately $93.33
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Ms. McLin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. McLin provided that during the previous five years she had lectured at a seminar on Domestic Law in South Carolina and has attended numerous legal/judicial seminars conducted at the University of South Carolina Law School and in other locations. She has met or exceeded her C.L.E. requirements in the previous five years.
Ms. McLin reported that she had lectured one time regarding Family Law in South Carolina over the last five years.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. McLin did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. McLin did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. McLin has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. McLin was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. McLin reported that the law firm she practices with (Goodstein & Goodstein) has a Martindale-Hubbell rating of "AV".
An affidavit was filed in support of Ms. McLin based upon her high character, competency, and ethics.
(6) Physical health:
Ms. McLin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Ms. McLin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. McLin was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.
Since her graduation from law school, Ms. McLin was a law clerk for Judge Howell from 1988 to 1990; and has practiced with Goodstein & Goodstein from 1990 until the present.
Ms. McLin's employment with Goodstein & Goodstein is a general practice, with the majority of her practice focused on family law matters, including but not limited to adoptions, custody actions, equitable distribution cases, and support actions.
Ms. McLin reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: None.
(b) state: Weekly (Primarily in Family Court)
Ms. McLin reported the percentage of her practice as follows:
(a) civil: 9%
(b) criminal: 1%
(c) domestic: 90%
Ms. McLin reported the percentage of her practice in trial courts as follows:
(a) jury: 5%
(b) non-jury: 95% (Primarily Family Court)
She served primarily as chief counsel and/or associate counsel.
·Ms. McLin listed her five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Kristina Gale Drewry v. Gene Allen Drewry, 95- DR-18-21
The Drewry case was significant in that it involved contested custody and equitable distribution issues. I was substituted as counsel for the Plaintiff after the temporary hearing. The Plaintiff was only granted visitation during the temporary hearing. The Final Order awarded the Plaintiff full custody of the two (2) minor children. The Court's final holding regarding custody, visitation, child support, and equitable distribution was almost identical to my offer of settlement prior to the Final Hearing. This case was significant particularly for the positive impact it had on the lives of the two (2) minor children.
(b) John T. Motte, Jr. v. Lucy E. Motte, 92-DR-08- 2095, and Lucy E. Motte v. John T. Motte, Jr., 92- DR-08-2105
The Motte cases were also significant for their contested custody, property and support issues. Numerous hearings were held in these cases and discovery was extensive. The first case involved issues of custody, visitation, child support, spousal support, equitable distribution of assets and debts, and attorneys' fees and costs. The second Motte case was filed after evidence of child abuse occurred almost immediately upon the conclusion of the first case. These cases were clearly significant for their impact on the minor child and the protection of the child's best interest.
(c) Catherine Ann Hill v. John William Hill, 93-DR- 18-1401; and Catherine Ann Hill v. John William Hill.
The Hill case was significant because it ultimately involved a contempt hearing and an appeal. Although the original domestic action settled the night before the Final Hearing, the wife failed to comply with the settlement agreement and failed to act in good faith. According to the settlement agreement, certain property was returned to my client, the husband. However, the property was maliciously and willfully damaged prior to its return to my client. Consequently, the wife was held in contempt with financial relief (for the damage inflicted by the wife) awarded to the husband. The wife appealed and the trial court's Contempt Order was upheld.
(d) Cynthia Robin Hartzog v. Michael David Hartzog 94-DR-08-0931
(e) Michael Havens v. Karla Havens, 94-DR-10-3973
The Hartzog and Havens cases were significant because they involved contested support issues. The Hartzog case involved child support issues and the Final Order increasing the child support directly improved the children's lives and undoubtedly promoted the children's best interests. Likewise, the successful outcome of the Havens case provided child support and spousal support which was essential to my client and the two (2) minor children. The Havens and Hartzog cases were also significant because assets were concealed and/or transferred to new spouses and income concealed; however, discovery efforts revealed assets and income information critical to each case.
·Ms. McLin listed one civil appeal she had personally handled:
(a) Catherine Ann Hill v. John William Hill, 93-DR- 18-1401, South Carolina Court of Appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. McLin's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. McLin is married to Ray Elliott McLin, Jr., and they have no children.
Ms. McLin reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) American Bar Association
(c) Dorchester County Bar Association (President 1994-96)
(d) Charleston Bar Association
(e) ABA Section of Family Law
(f) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(g) South Carolina Women Lawyers Association
(h) Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Ms. McLin provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
(a) Mt. Hebron United Methodist Church
(b) Kiwanis
(c) Carolina Alumni Association
(d) Happy Homes Human Rights Committee (Chairperson, 1994-present)
(e) Panel Member, First Judicial Circuit of the Resolution of Fee Dispute Board of the South Carolina Bar
(f) Board Member, Dorchester County Public Defender Corporation (1994-1996)
(g) Hunting Farms Civic Association
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Wylie meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Wylie was born on December 22, 1958. He is 39 years old and a resident of Dorchester County. Judge Wylie provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Wylie.
Judge Wylie demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Wylie 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 Wylie testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Wylie testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately $ 30.00 to $40.00.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Wylie to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Wylie provided that during the previous five years he has consistently carried over many more hours of J.C.L.E. credit than needed. He has participated as a faculty member at two Probate Bench/Bar Conferences, and he organized and moderated the seminars for the South Carolina Association of Probate Judges conferences in 1995 and 1996.
Judge Wylie reported that he has served as a panelist at two Probate Bench/Bar Conferences, has lectured on probate procedure at a seminar for new probate judges conducted by Court Administration, has participated as an attorney in a mock-trial as part of an evidence seminar put on by Court Administration at a Probate Judges Conference, and locally, he has spoken to various groups about probate proceedings, and taught family law and probate law to a government class at Summerville High School.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Wylie did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Wylie did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Wylie has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Wylie was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Wylie reported that his last available Martindale- Hubbell rating was "BV", which is the first rating he received.
Judge Wylie was appointed as Dorchester County Magistrate from June 1989-January 1993. In January 1993, he was elected as Dorchester County Probate Judge and has held that position since that time.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Wylie appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Wylie appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Wylie was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Wylie practiced law as a partner in the Polito and Wylie law firm until January 1993, when he became probate judge. His primary area of practice was family law in Dorchester, Berkeley, and Charleston counties. He did a significant amount of pro bono work, representing children in abuse and neglect cases, and in 1992 was a part of the South Carolina Bar Pro Bono Program. Additionally, he handled some personal injury cases, and maintained a few small business clients for whom he performed a variety of legal services.
·Judge Wylie listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Hill v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 280 SC 174, 311 S.E.2d 734 (SC 1984) I was involved in this case as a law clerk for the Donelan Law Firm in Columbia. The attorney handling the case instructed me to find a way to get it removed from federal court to state court since the consequential damages award in the first trial had been reversed by the Federal Court of Appeals, leaving actual damages in an amount below that required for diversity jurisdiction. That would not work, so I developed an argument for a different measure of damages under the Uniform Commercial Code. The question was certified to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which found in our favor. The case was re-tried in federal court and the firm's client obtained a $150,000 verdict. Though I did not "personally handle" this case as an attorney, my work was original, creative, and salvaged a case that had for all practical purposes already been lost on appeal. Furthermore, the case set an important precedent in "herbicide failure" cases.
(b) Couto v. Couto. This was an unreported case I tried in Family Court before Judge Biggs. It was significant in that my client, a blue-collar worker who could not afford to hire an economist, was allowed to testify as to the value of his pension for the purposes of equitable distribution of the marital assets. He and I spent several hours together making the calculations, and working through the formulas and discount rates until he understood what we were doing. As it turned out, the range of values we determined was very close to what his wife's expert calculated, and opposing counsel agreed to a stipulation that kept the cost of litigation down for both parties. This was before the S.C. Supreme Court decided that pension valuations required expert testimony, and had our case been appealed, I think the Supreme Court might have reached a different conclusion, or at least agreed that he was qualified to testify as an expert witness on the value of his own pension.
I think this case is important because it illustrates my efforts as an attorney to see that people of little financial means received quality legal services, and were not prevented from having their day in court simply because they made too much money to qualify for legal aid.
(c) Stanford v. Stanford. This was an unreported divorce case that I tried before Judge Creech in Berkeley County. I represented the husband who had left his wife and two small children for another woman with whom he was openly involved. Prior to the temporary hearing, I had negotiated what I believed was a favorable offer of settlement of the temporary support issue, but my client rejected it claiming that I seemed to be trying to help his wife more than him. As a result of the temporary hearing, my client was required to pay significantly more in support than the settlement offer, and in addition was required to pay temporary attorney's fees. As we left the hearing, I expected him to say that he should have followed my advice. Instead, he thanked me for fighting for him.
This case had a tremendous impact on me. At the time, I was already enjoying my service as a part-time magistrate, and this case convinced me that my personality and ability were far better suited to trying to bring about a just solution to a case for both parties, than being the zealous advocate for the one-sided interests of my clients.
(d) Jones v. Jones. This was a contested divorce case that I tried for three days in Berkeley County. The primary issue was equitable distribution, and at the conclusion of the case the trial judge asked me and opposing counsel to submit proposed orders. The other attorney's order found all facts in his client's favor, and awarded him substantially all of the marital property. My order was, of course, favorable to my client, but sought to make an award that was supported by the record as a whole, and not just from my client's perspective. The trial judge made an award that was much closer to what I had proposed, though less favorable to my client.
This case was significant because it prompted me to resolve never to request proposed orders from attorneys without my first making a decision and providing detailed instructions as to the findings and conclusions I wanted in the order. I believe that the practice of requiring both sides to present proposed orders puts attorneys in the difficult position of having to balance being a zealous advocate for their client and submitting an order that has a chance of being adopted by the court.
(e) Ford v. Ackerman. This was an unreported bench trial in the Colleton County Court of Common Pleas involving an attorney (since disbarred) who entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land to my client. The contract was contingent upon my client obtaining financing, and when he was unable to do so, he requested a return of his $6,000 down payment. The defendant refused, claiming that since he offered my client financing at 18% interest, the terms of the contract had been fulfilled, and he was entitled to specific performance.
The case was decided in our favor, and is not particularly noteworthy. However, I list it as a significant case because it involved an influential member of the Colleton County Bar with the largest law firm in the county, and whose partner insisted that the case be continued or referred to the local Master when it was called for trial before a visiting judge. There was no reason offered why the case should not go forward, and I vehemently opposed the continuance or reference. The case was tried, and I believe justice was done. I am not suggesting that anything unethical was being attempted, but I gained from that experience a much greater appreciation for our "circuit riding" system, and it reaffirmed my conviction that there can be no room for "home cooking" in our judicial system.
·Judge Wylie listed his five most significant orders or opinions (which he drafted as a probate judge) as follows:
(a) Michael N. Marso, Personal Representative v. Ashley River Lumber Co., Inc., 94ES18-141 (Feb. 1, 1995).
(b) In the Matter of James Norris, Sr, Deceased,. 92ES18-128 (Jan.7, 1994).
(c) In the Matter of Roger Earl Reid, 92ES18-69 (June 28, 1993).
(d) In the Matter of Archie Louis Owens, 92ES18- 232 (Jan. 20, 1994).
(e) In the Matter of Sadie Alef Johnston Bishop, 91ES18-4 (March 7, 1993).
Judge Wylie prepared the brief in one domestic appeal: Conley v. Woodrum.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Wylie's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Wylie is married to Carol Sides Wylie and has three children: Bill Wylie (8); Wilson Wylie (5); and Matt Wylie (3).
Judge Wylie reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) National College of Probate Judges
(c) SC Association of Probate Judges (First vice- president, Oct. 1995-Oct. 1996; President, Oct. 1996 - Oct. 1997)
Judge Wylie provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Summerville Rotary Club. Elected to Board of Directors, 1995-1996.
(b) Flowertown Elementary School. Member PTA 1994 -1997.
(c) Newington Elementary School. Member PTA 1997-1998
·Judge Wylie stated, "I grew up in Brazil, the son of Presbyterian missionaries, where my father worked with impoverished fishermen and their families. My parents' example of sacrificial service to others has had a tremendous impact on me. It is probably responsible for my undertaking an inordinate amount of pro bono work as an attorney. My parents are staunch Democrats, and the fact that I ran and was elected probate judge as a Republican is something over which they will always shake their heads! My political views lie somewhere between those of a conservative, Southern Democrat, and a moderate Republican. The zealots of both parties tend to find my views exacerbating, but my ability to see both sides of an issue has served me well as a judge.
I grew up in a foreign culture, where I counted the rejected of society among my friends. In college, I spent my summers as a construction laborer, farm hand, and factory worker. As an attorney and as an elected county official, I move in and out of elite social circles. Throughout my life, I have been exposed to, and counted as friends, people from all walks of life and from diverse cultural, racial and social backgrounds. As a result, I believe that I have a unique appreciation for the dignity and value of all human beings, and an openness to evaluating the merits of particular circumstances, unfettered by pre-conceived notions or judgments."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Nuessle meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Nuessle was born on February 26, 1945. He is 52 years old and a resident of Aiken County. Judge Nuessle provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1970.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Nuessle.
Judge Nuessle demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Nuessle testified that he had not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Nuessle 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 Nuessle testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Nuessle to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Nuessle provided that during the previous five years he has attended various continuing legal education courses in the excess of fifteen hours annually that is required by the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Judge Nuessle reported that he has taught Business Law at Aiken Technical College from 1973 to 1979.
Judge Nuessle reported that he participates in the activities of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Graniteville, S.C. He reported he has never used judicial office to further these interests.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Nuessle did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Nuessle did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Nuessle has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Nuessle was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Nuessle reported that as a member of the judiciary, he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Nuessle appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Nuessle appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Nuessle was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970.
After his graduation from law school, Judge Nuessle practiced law with Garvin and Grant from 1970 to 1973, with Garvin, Grant, Fox, Nuessle, Zier and Burkhalter from 1973 to 1978, as a solo practitioner from 1978 to 1979, and as General Counsel for the South Carolina State Housing Authority, Columbia, SC, Multi-Family Housing Bond Issues from 1979 to 1983. Since 1983, he has served as a Family Court Judge, Second Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, Aiken, SC.
Judge Nuessle reported that he is currently a Family Court Judge. He was elected on February 1983 and has served continuously since that date. The Court's jurisdiction is limited to domestic and juvenile matters.
·Judge Nuessle listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Margaret W. Topp vs. Stephen V. Topp, Docket No. 82-DR-02-1647; Judgment Roll# 66,1161, Aiken County
(b) Aiken County Dept. of Social Services vs. David Wilcox and Renee Wilcox 88-DR-02-1773, Aiken County
(c) Clair M. Ahrens vs. Lester G. Ahrens, Docket No. 87-DR-02-1285, Aiken County
(d) Geoffrey E. King vs. Bonita F. King 95-DR-02- 519, Aiken County
(e) Timothy R. Campbell vs. Louise T. Campbell 95- DR-02-286, Aiken County. Presently under appeal.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Nuessle's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Nuessle is married to Barbara Patterson Nuessle and has two children: Patterson Ryan Nuessle (age 25, soil scientist) and Cameron Stuart Nuessle (age 24, recent graduate from graduate school).
Judge Nuessle reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Family Court Judges Conference
(c) Aiken County Bar
(d) Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity
Judge Nuessle provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Sigma Chi Fraternity
(b) Saint Paul's Episcopal Church, Graniteville, S.C. (Layreader, Chalice Bearer, Member of the Vestry and former Senior Warden)
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Gray meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Gray was born on November 6, 1938. He is 58 years old and a resident of Sumter County. Judge Gray provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1963.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Gray.
Judge Gray demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Gray testified that he had not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Gray 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 Gray testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Gray to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Gray has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Gray provided that during the each of the previous five years he has exceeded all JCLE requirements in Family Law and Ethics.
Judge Gray reported that he had lectured or taught the following CLE or Judicial Education programs:
(a) New Family Court Judges Orientation, July, 1995;
(b) Judicial Conference, New Cases Update, 1996.
Judge Gray reported that he serves as Chairman of the Governor's Youth Council for this circuit. He is essentially a facilitator, but intends to become a resource person.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Gray did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Gray did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Gray has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Gray was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Gray provided that he served in the United States Army from November 1963 to 1965. He received an Honorable Discharge in 1965 with the rank of Specialist 4.
Judge Gray reported that as a member of the judiciary, he is unaware of a Martindale-Hubbell rating.
Judge Gray served on the State Election Commission from 1978 to 1982; as a School Trustee for District 17 from 1973 to 1978; on Sumter County Council from 1985 to 1992; and on the South Carolina Crime Victims Board from 1989 to 1992.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Gray appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Gray appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Gray was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1963.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Gray practiced law with Ernest A. Finney, Jr. before being drafted in 1963. He then practiced with Ernest A. Finney, Jr. from 1965 until Justice Finney's election to the Bench. He practiced with associates until July 1992. Since 1992, he has served as a Family Court Judge.
Judge Gray has been a Family Court Judge, Third Circuit, since July 1, 1992 to present.
·Judge Gray listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Patricia Ann Freeman v. Ashby O. Freeman, Docket No. 92-DR-08-2717, 95-UP-222
(b) Norman Henslee vs. Victoria S. Henslee, Docket No. 93-DR-08-1449
(c) Susan Newman v. John Lee Newman, Docket No. 93-DR-43-2139
(d) Franklin H. Shaefer v. Stephanie Ann Shaefer, Docket No. 93-DR-10-8988
(e) Susan l. Jessen v. Eric C. Jessen, Docket No. 93- DR-43-1924, 95-MO-183 Sup. Ct.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Gray's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Gray is married to Jean Elizabeth Gray and has three children: Valencia Gray-Williams (age 32, pharmacist), Ruben L. Gray, Jr., (age 31, electrical engineering assistant), and Valerie L. Gray-Ellison (age 26, social worker).
Judge Gray reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges
Judge Gray provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Goodfellows Club
(b) Rotary
(c) DAV - Gamecock Chapter
·Judge Gray stated, "I have enjoyed serving as a Family Court Judge over the past five years. The experience and opportunity to serve has been tremendous."
Commission Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Henderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Henderson was born on October 12, 1949. He is 48 years old and a resident of Chesterfield County. Judge Henderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Henderson.
Judge Henderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Henderson testified that he had made no campaign expenditures.
Judge 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.
Judge Henderson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Henderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Henderson stated that prior to his election as a Family Court Judge, his continuing legal education was in excess of annual requirements and covered a varied range of subjects because he was involved in a general law practice. He has recently attended the National Judicial College, completing a course in Survival Skills for the Domestic Relations Judge. He has also received JCLE credit for attending all meetings of the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges, and attending the Governor's Conference on Youth Crime.
Judge Henderson taught a CLE seminar in 1994 on jury selection as part of the "Successful Civil Litigation: Hot Tips From The Experts" program. Judge Henderson lectured at the 1997 Conference of Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes and the 1997 Annual Judicial Conference on the subjects of civil and criminal contempt and courtroom security.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Henderson did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Henderson indicated a South Carolina tax lien in the amount of $37.29, dated January 20, 1983. The lien was satisfied on March 2, 1983. Otherwise, Judge Henderson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Henderson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Henderson provided that he served in the United States Army Reserves. He was honorably discharged in May of 1971 as a Specialist Fourth Class, ***-**-****.
Judge Henderson reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV".
Judge Henderson served as Chairman of the Chesterfield County Election Commission from 1977-1984, a position to which he was appointed.
Judge Henderson served as a member of the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education from 1986-1993, a position to which he was appointed.
Judge Henderson served as a member of the Chesterfield County School District Board of Education in 1995, a position to which he was elected.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Henderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Henderson appears mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Henderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
Upon graduation from law school, Judge Henderson began the general of practice of law in Chesterfield, South Carolina with his father-in-law, the late Edward McIver Leppard. Leppard retired in 1982 and Judge Henderson continued in solo general practice until 1985 when he formed a partnership with William O. Spencer, Jr. At this time, Judge Henderson began to concentrate in the areas of Family Law, Criminal Law, and Personal Injury Law. He continued in practice with Spencer until his election to the bench in 1995.
Judge Henderson took office as Family Court Judge, 4th Circuit, Seat 1 on July 1, 1995.
·Judge Henderson listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Stewart v. Van Epps, 95-DR-16-0712
(b) South Carolina Dep't of Social Services v. Simpson, 95-DR-04-965
(c) Fudenberg v. Fudenberg, 92-DR-10-3235
(d) Courtney v. Courtney, 97-DR-42-1170
(e) Page v. Page, 96-DR-17-238
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Henderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Henderson is married to Sarah Jane Leppard Henderson and they have 3 children: Emory Clark Henderson, age 18, Charlotte Rae Henderson, age 16, and Roger Edward Henderson, age 10.
Judge Henderson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar
(b) Chesterfield County Bar Association.
Judge Henderson reported that has been a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations in the past five years:
(a) Chesterfield Service Club
(b) Executive Council, Boy Scout Troop 650
(c) Coach, Chesterfield Dixie Youth Baseball
(d) Coach, Chesterfield Recreation Department Football
(e) Chesterfield-Marlboro Technical College Hall of Fame
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Judge Williams was born on March 13, 1956. He is 41 years old and a resident of Richland County. Judge Williams provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Williams.
Judge Williams demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Williams testified that he had not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge 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.
Judge Williams testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Williams reported that as a practicing lawyer, he attended twelve (12) or more hours of Continuing Legal Education courses each year. The majority of these hours related to domestic law. Additionally, he attended twelve (12) hours each year for judicial continuing education credit as a municipal Judge. Since being elected to the Family Court, he has attended the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. He has attended all mandatory JCLEs as well as numerous CLE courses in the area of family law.
Judge Williams reported that he had lectured:
(a) to a class about abuse and neglect cases in Family Court at the USC School of Law;
(b) to the Richland County Bar sponsored program, "Law School for Non-Lawyers" about juvenile law;
(c) to several guardian ad litem training classes.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Williams did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Williams did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Williams has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Williams was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Williams reported that his current Martindale- Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Williams appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Williams appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Williams was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Williams practiced law with Scott, Mathews and Williams from 1982-1991 and with Trotter and Williams from 1991-1995. His practice was a general practice of law with a primary emphasis on family law and personal injury law. He served as a part-time Municipal Judge for Irmo from October 1991-1995, being appointed by the Town Council with jurisdiction limited to magistrate level criminal and traffic offenses.
Judge Williams reported that he has been a Family Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, since June 30, 1995. ·Judge Williams listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Bates v. Bates - Opinion No. 97-UP-247; Court of Appeals
Affirms post-divorce modification of alimony
(b) Ellis v. Commander - 96-DR-40-1708;Case involved medical treatment for baby when parents object to treatment
(c) Jones v. Jones, 96-DR-40-2069;Divorce action with issues involving visitation and equitable distribution
(d) Cheung v. Beck - 95-DR-40-1958 Custody case
(e) D.S.S. v. Gilmore, et. al. - 94-DR-40-5644
Case involves termination of parental rights
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Williams' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Williams is married to Sharon Childers Williams and has two children: Elizabeth Margaret Williams (age 10), and Anne Carlisle Williams (age 5).
Judge Williams reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association, 1982-present
(b) Richland County Bar Association, 1982-present (Family Law Committee Chairman, 1993; Family Law Committee, 1991-93)
(c) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association, 1995-present (Secretary/Treasurer, elected 1997)
(d) National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1996-present
Judge Williams provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Vestry, 1990-1991)
(b) Columbia Kiwanis Club (President, 1989-1990; Board of Directors, 1987-1991, 1994-1995; Key Club-Keywanette Advisor, 1983-present)
(c) Summit Club
(d) WildeWood Country Club
(e) Tarantella Club
(f) St. John's Episcopal Church
·Judge Williams stated, "I am assisting in developing a comprehensive Juvenile Drug Court for the Richland County Family Court. The unique program should begin within the next 30 to 60 days."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Judge Strom was born on March 10, 1959. She is 38 years old and is a resident of Columbia. Judge Strom provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Strom.
Judge Strom demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Strom reported that she had not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Strom testified that she 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 Strom testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Strom to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Strom described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as:
1993: SCTLA Annual Convention, "Domestic Practice: Hot Tips From the Experts," "Serving the Best Interests of Children"
1994: SCTLA Annual Convention, Orientation School for Family, Judicial Conference, "Juvenile Crime: A Special Family Court Seminar"
1995: SCTLA Annual Convention, "Custody and Visitation Decision - Making When There are Allegations of Sexual Abuse," South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges' Conference, Judicial Conference, Annual Mtg: Family Law Section/South Carolina Bankruptcy Lawyers, Fall 95 Bench/Bar Family Law Update
1996: SCTLA Annual Convention, Judicial Conference, 96 Family Court Bench/Bar Update
1997: SCTLA Annual Convention, Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes, Annual Judicial Conference, South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges' Conference.
Judge Strom reported that she has lectured:
South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Seminars:
(a) "Domestic Practice: The Return of Hot Tips from the Experts." May 1991. Lecture Topic - Interstate Child Support Remedies
(b) "Domestic Practice: Hot Tips from the Experts Rides Again." May 1992 Lecture Topic - Child Support Enforcement Against Military Personnel
(c) "Bridge The Gap" May 21, 1997
(d) "SC Family Law Update" May 30, 1997
United States Attorneys Conference on the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992:
Panel participant to discuss the Act which provides for the Federal Prosecution of child support obligors and to discuss the coordination of efforts between Federal and State authorities.
Guest lecturer, Columbia Junior College for Paralegal Studies on various child support related topics.
Judge Strom reported that she has written "Retroactive Establishment of Support," Child Support Prosecutors' Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 7, July 1991.
Judge Strom reported that she is a member of the Board of Visitors for Salem College but does not use her judicial office to further this interest in any way whatsoever.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Strom did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Strom did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Strom has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Strom was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Strom reported that prior to her election to the Family Court, she was a public-sector attorney and was not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Strom appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Strom appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Strom was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.
Since her graduation from law school, Judge Strom clerked for the Honorable J.A. McKown, Resident Judge Seventh Circuit (Retired) 1984-1985. She was then a State Attorney for the South Carolina Department of Social Services' Office of Child Support Enforcement; responsible for child support prosecution in various circuits including the Fifth Judicial Circuit. These circuits include Richland, Kershaw, Orangeburg, and York counties. She was the Chief State Attorney for the South Carolina Department of Social Services, the Office of Child Support Enforcement 1989-1991; responsible for the management of a regional office with approximately 22 staff working in eight counties and for child support prosecution in Newberry and Calhoun counties. She was Chief Counsel, South Carolina Department of Social Services Office of Child Support Enforcement, 1991-1994; responsible for the supervision of attorney staff statewide, the creation of program policy to ensure compliance with State and Federal law, the development and monitoring of legislation, the drafting and execution of contracts between the Department and Clerks of Courts and law enforcement, the coordination of program activities with Court Administration and Family Court, and the prosecution of child support cases in support of the attorney staff.
Judge Strom was elected Judge, of the Family Court Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4, 1994-present.
·Judge Strom listed her five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Cockrell v. Branham, 96-DR-40-0218
This was a 3 1/2 day custody case which resulted in a change in custody of the parties' two daughters from the mother to the father.
(b) Carosi v. Hildreth, 96-DR-40-4286
Father brought an action for visitation and mother counterclaimed for termination of father's parental rights.
(c) Baker v. Baker, 95-DR-40-3435
The equitable division of the parties' marital estate in this divorce action involved a very complicated issue relating to the division of husband's military retirement.
(d) Department of Social Services v. Venorris Earles, 93-DR-40-0730
This termination of parental rights case is currently on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. The court may address whether hearsay testimony of the child was properly admitted and whether the Department of Social Services must make repeated efforts to offer services of a parent.
(e) State v. Cisco Knightner, 96-JU-40-1639
The juvenile was charged with and found guilty of criminal sexual conduct with a minor. A pretrial motion was filed asking the court to allow the taking of testimony of the child/victim by closed-circuit television. The motion was granted. This issue is currently on appeal.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Strom's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Strom is married to Joseph Preston Strom, Jr., and has two children: Margaret McKenna Strom (age 8 1/2) and Caroline Neal Strom (born December 1997).
Judge Strom reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar
Judge Strom provided that she was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Member of the Board of Visitors for Salem College
(b) Member of Trenholm Road United Methodist Church
(c) South Carolina Child Support Guidelines Review Committee, 1994 (Chairperson)
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Fraley meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service in the Family Court.
Mr. Fraley was born on December 5, 1951. He is 45 years old and a resident of Spartanburg. Mr. Fraley provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Fraley.
Mr. Fraley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Fraley testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately $200.00.
Mr. Fraley 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. Fraley testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Fraley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Fraley provided that during the previous five years he has attended various family law seminars sponsored by the SC Bar and others. He has also organized a CLE-approved seminar, served as its discussion leader, and lectured on a topic. He has also completed a forty hour training course for divorce mediation.
Mr. Fraley reported that he has taught a business law course at Rutledge College in Spartanburg, SC. He has also lectured at a CLE-approved seminar on the family court financial declaration and served as discussion leader of the seminar.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Fraley did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Fraley did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Fraley has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Fraley was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Fraley reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
Mr. Fraley reported he was elected as chair of Woodland Heights Neighborhood Association, Spartanburg, SC.
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Fraley appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Fraley appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Fraley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
After graduation from law school, Mr. Fraley began practicing law with Michael W. Skeen in November 1977 and they formed a partnership (Skeen and Fraley) shortly thereafter. In 1979, Paul Townsend McChesney, who had been serving as law clerk to then South Carolina Supreme Court Justice C. Bruce Littlejohn, joined the firm. Mr. Skeen left the firm to take a judicial position and the retired Family Court Judge Paul S. McChesney, Jr. joined the firm (Fraley, McChesney & McChesney). The firm engaged in general practice through most of its history, with Mr. Fraley's practice during the past eight years limited to family law.
·Mr. Fraley listed his most significant litigated matters in trial or appellate court or before a state or federal agency as follows:
(a) Belue vs. Belue, 276 SE 2d 295, 276 SC 120 (1981)--In 1981, it was not clear how to challenge an error of the lower court in a final order when the Defendant was not present and in default. This case resolved that issue and is cited frequently in post judgment motions and is frequently discussed at seminars.
(b) State vs. Clary--I was co-counsel for the Defendant in a jury trial in General Sessions Court, who was charged with 3 counts of reckless homicide and 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter. Defendant was found not guilty on all charges.
(c) Youngblood vs. Youngblood--I represented the husband in a contested adultery case with little, if any corroboration of adultery against a wife who was also seeking alimony. The court found adultery and denied alimony. The wife appealed. The Supreme Court ruled in our favor by dismissing the appeal.
(d) State vs. Boggs--In a case I will never forget, I was co-counsel in a case representing a 17 year old girl who was charged with shooting and killing her father while he slept. She was charged with murder. The father allegedly physically and sexually abused her and her younger brother for several years. We negotiated an involuntary manslaughter plea and Ms. Boggs received a suspended sentence with a couple of years probation.
(e) Laird et al. vs. State--This was an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States concerning a jury charge which contained the statement that the Defendant was "prima facie guilty" if the jury found certain facts. The U.S. Supreme Court, treating the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari, denied certiorari. This case was significant to me personally due to the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. A copy of the Brief is attached.
(f) There are numerous unreported contested custody cases where I was successful, including obtaining custody for a step-mother in an action against the natural father. Contested custody cases are difficult, complex, and emotionally stressful to the litigants.
·Mr. Fraley listed the following domestic appeals which he has personally handled:
(a) Lillian M. Youngblood, App. vs. Darrell R. Youngblood, Resp. I represented Respondent before the Supreme Court of S.C. The case was affirmed December 15, 1986 pursuant to then Rule 23.
(b) Richard O. Belue, App. vs. Mirielle T. Belue, Resp. I represented Appellant before the Supreme Court of S.C. The case was affirmed on March 10, 1991. See 276 SE 2d 295, 276 SC 120.
(c) Betty Mae Linder, Pet.-Resp. vs. Rico Agnew Resp. et al. I represented the minor, Rico Agnew, as guardian ad litem. The case was affirmed in part and reversed in part. My name was inadvertently not listed on the record. See 276 SE 2d 774, 276 SC 123 and my letter of 2-18-81 that is attached to my copy of the brief. I prepared a brief on behalf to he minor and attended oral argument.
(d) James Edward Harvey, et al. Pet.-Appellants vs. James Earl Nodine et al. Respondent. This was an unreported opinion on a writ of supersedeas appealed to the S.C. Supreme Court. The underlying appeal was later dismissed by Appellant.
Mr. Fraley reported that in 1991, he was appointed by Circuit Judge James B. Stephen to serve as a special Referee for Cherokee County and to hear the case of Horton Construction Co., Inc. vs. Daisy Outdoor Advertising, Inc. A contested hearing was held on October 16, 1991, in Gaffney. He ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed his decision by unpublished opinion no. 93-UP-118, heard April 13, 1993, and filed April 22, 1993.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Fraley's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Fraley is married to Margaret Karen Fraley and has one child: Amy Loretta Fraley (age 10).
Mr. Fraley reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Board of Directors of Public Defender's office of Spartanburg County (former member)
(c) Spartanburg County Bar Association Family Court Committee (Chair)
(d) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(e) Children's Committee
(f) Council for Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Mr. Fraley provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Covenant Presbyterian Church (Deacon, Elder, Finance Committee chair, Commitment chair, Church Officer Nominating Committee chair, Pulpit Nominating Committee chair, adult Sunday School teacher, youth fellowship leader)
(b) Woodland Heights Neighborhood Association (Chair)
(c) National Youth Sports Coaches Association (Little League coach)
(d) Westside Booster Club
(e) Former member of Spartanburg Civitan Club (served as Sergeant at Arms and on the Board of Directors)
·Mr. Fraley stated, "I feel I am a respected member of the Spartanburg Bar and of Covenant Presbyterian Church, where I have been elected to numerous positions. My family is most important to me. Most of my spare time is spent with my wife and 10 year old daughter."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Kelly meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service in the Family Court.
Mr. Kelly was born on June 5, 1958. He is 39 years old and a resident of Woodruff. Mr. Kelly provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Kelly testified that he had no campaign expenditures to date.
Mr. Kelly 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. Kelly testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Kelly to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Kelly provided that during the previous five years he has exceeded all CLE requirements.
Mr. Kelly reported that he had lectured or taught the following law-related courses:
(a) Family Law (to non-lawyers)
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Kelly did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Kelly did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Kelly has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Kelly was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Kelly reported that he had served with in the United States Army from 1981-1984 and received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of 1st Lieutenant. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1984-1995 and received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of Captain.
Mr. Kelly reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Kelly appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Kelly appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Kelly was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Kelly has practiced law with Jim Brooks, Esquire. Approximately 40% of his practice is Family Court, 40% criminal defense, 10% real estate, and 10% other.
Mr. Kelly reported that the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Federal: Less than 2%
State: 98% approximately
Other: Administrative Law Judge: 1 case
Mr. Kelly reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
Civil: Less than 5%
Criminal: Approximately 40%
Domestic: Approximately 40%
Mr. Kelly reported that his practice in trial court during the last five years involving matters that went to a jury as follows:
Jury: 50%
Non-Jury: 50%
He served most often as sole counsel.
·Mr. Kelly listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) State v. Jessie Keith Brown: I volunteered to assist the Public Defender in this Death Penalty case. The defendant was acquitted of murder. I played a small part in this case but did it for the experience.
(b) State v. Kelly F. Samples: I am court appointed to represent the defendant in this Death Penalty case, currently pending trial in the Eight Judicial Circuit. It is expected that the case will be called for trial in April 1998.
(c) State v. Jeff Wofford: an appeal from the Court of General Sessions. Significant because Mr. Wofford was not sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act. The sentence of the trial court was overturned.
(d) Poteat v. Dunaway: a Family Court case currently pending trial in the Seventh Judicial Circuit. This case is being readied as a test case regarding the issue of constitutionality or requiring a parent in a divorced family unit to provide support for post secondary education of an adult issue where there is no such requirement to do so in an intact family unit.
(e) State v. Tammy Calvert: A General Sessions felony DUI case. The Defendant was convicted after trial by jury. The case was significant because an out of court experiment using drugs and alcohol was conducted and admitted into evidence.
·Mr. Kelly listed one domestic appeal he had personally handled and indicated that he had not perfected any other appeals in Family Court:
(a) Boswell v. Seay, et al. 93-DR-42-2267, affirmed by The Court of Appeals, rehearing denied. Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied by the S.C. Supreme Court 9 August 1996.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Kelly's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Kelly is married to Cynthia Gail Jackson Kelly and has three children: Whitney Jo Kelly (11), Lillie Sarah Kelly (8), Hannah Carole Kelly (7).
Mr. Kelly reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar
(b) Spartanburg County Bar Association
(c) South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (Founding Member)
Mr. Kelly provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Rotary Club (Past President, Current Board of Directors)
(b) United Methodist Men's Club
(c) Emma Gray Memorial UMC (Past President)
(d) Three Pines Country Club
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Paslay meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service in the Family Court.
Judge Paslay was born on December 26, 1945. He is 51 years old and a resident of Spartanburg. Judge Paslay provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Paslay.
Judge Paslay demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Paslay testified that he had no campaign expenditures to date.
Judge Paslay 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 Paslay testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Paslay to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Paslay provided that during the previous five years he has completed 22 CLE/JCLE courses.
Judge Paslay reported that he had lectured or taught the following CLE or Judicial Education Programs:
(a) Search and Seizure Law, October 1982;
(b) Arrest Warrants and Arraignment, October 1985;
(c) Arrest Warrants and Bail, September 1990;
(d) Video Arraignment Procedures, July 1992;
(e) Criminal Domestic Violence, September 1993;
(f) Landlord-Tenant Laws, September 1993;
(g) Civil Appeals Procedures, April 1994;
(h) Assessments Calculations and Procedures, December 1994;
(I) New Crime Bill, January 1995;
(j) Lecturer, Citizens Law Forum, Trial Lawyers Association, September 1994.
Judge Paslay reported that he had taught the following law-related courses:
(a) Lecturer at Merchants Association Seminar on Shoplifting Laws, November 1977;
(b) Taught Citizens Law Forum, Spartanburg Methodist College, September 1979;
(c) Recently selected to teach new Paralegal School at Converse College, Spartanburg.
Judge Paslay reported that he had published an article: "Contracts, Annual Survey of S.C. Law, 1969", 21 S.C. Law Review No. 4, Page 510-520.
Judge Paslay reported extra-judicial community involvement in several areas. In 1983, he founded a not-for profit organization the Spartanburg Commodore Users Group, which provides computer literacy to families and stresses the creative use of computers in art, music, and writing. He has served as a judge in the S.C. Bar Association's annual Moot Court competition for high school students, has participated in forums teaching citizens about court procedures, and has participated in "career days" at Spartanburg schools. He has served as a soccer coach for the American Youth Soccer Association. He and his wife created a series of hand-painted first day covers (postage stamp-related collectibles), which they exhibit at local stamp shows. He has worked extensively with Alcoholics Anonymous, the Spartanburg Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, the Pretrial Intervention Program, and similar groups. With the help of the Salvation Army, he established the first "school" for persons convicted of domestic violence, and he has consulted with the Spartanburg Victim's Assistance Network to provide information to the victims of crimes.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Paslay did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Paslay did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Paslay has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
Judge Paslay reported that a tax lien had been filed against him in 1992 regarding his computation of medical deductions on his 1988 state tax return. He paid the amount within two weeks and the lien was marked "Satisfied."
The Commission also noted that Judge Paslay was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Paslay reported that he served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1969 - 1976. He received an Honorable Discharge and retired as Captain Quartermasters Corp.
Judge Paslay reported that he is not rated in Martindale- Hubbell because he has not practiced law since 1984.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Paslay appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Paslay appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Paslay was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
After his graduation from law school, Judge Paslay was a partner at Paslay and Paslay in Spartanburg from 1971-1984, practicing civil, criminal, probate, and family law. From 1973-1979, he was an Associate Judge for the Night and Weekend of the Spartanburg County Civil and Criminal Court. From 1979 to the present, he has served as a judge for the Spartanburg Magistrate Court. In Magistrates Court, he has served as supervisor of the Criminal Division, the Night Traffic Division, Jury Trials and Preliminary Hearings, the Supervisor Civil Division, and the Central Traffic Court.
·Judge Paslay listed his most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) State v. Lee Harder (1989) Criminal conviction involving newly enacted dangerous dog laws. Court ordered destruction of two animals who had bitten over 50 people. Case was appealed to circuit court and upheld.
(b) State v. Tyrus Cooper (1993) Criminal case involving issues of search and seizure, roadside interrogation, and admissibility of evidence. Upheld on appeal.
(c) Mary Magnum Eaton v. Bud Moss (93-CV- 003892) This is a case involving competing priorities of liens, ownership and possession rights of personal property, and the law of bailments.
(d) Housing Authority of the City of Spartanburg v. Sandra Jones, (94-CV-8002) This case involves the ejectment of tenants from public housing projects, interpretations of federal housing regulations, and rights and duties of landlords and tenants. Upheld on appeal.
(e) State v. Michael Brooks, 1995. Criminal case involving constitutional issues of double jeopardy unique to South Carolina. Case is currently on appeal to the State Supreme Court.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Paslay's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Paslay is married to Frances Bowen Paslay and has three children: Heather Anne Paslay (age 23, who works at Spartan Stamp & Sign Co.) and Bryan Douglass Paslay (age 21, who works at United Parcel Service).
Judge Paslay reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Spartanburg County Bar Association
(c) South Carolina Summary Court Judges Association Life Member
Judge Paslay provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Spartanburg Computer Users Group (SPARCUG)
(b) Spartanburg Arts Council (President, Vice President, Editor)
·Judge Paslay stated, "I have served as a full-time judge for nearly twenty-five years. In that time I have disposed of over two hundred thousand cases, including thousands of jury trials and preliminary hearings. I have supervised all three divisions of a multi-judge court - civil, traffic, and criminal. In that time, I have only been reversed on appeal three times.
The record indicates an ability to dispose of cases quickly and accurately. Additionally, I have been assigned many 'high profile' cases with controversial issues. With this volume of cases and with the emotional nature of many of these cases, I have never been the subject of any reprimands or disciplinary actions.
These factors indicate an ability to handle heavy caseloads efficiently. This makes for a candidate with unique abilities to handle the demands of a family court.
I have developed expertise in the areas of domestic violence, harassment, stalking laws, orders of protection, and restraining orders. These are areas in which the work I have performed is similar to that of a family court judge.
My job has also involved hearing many equitable issues. These include the issues of landlord-tenant law which involves equitable remedies including ordering conduct of parties and deciding whether to evict or not evict tenants. Additionally, I have decided thousands of cases of possession and ownership of personal property, through the actions of claim and delivery. This experience provides a good background in deciding the property issues confronting a family court judge.
I have performed over five hundred marriage ceremonies, and have counseled with tens of thousands of families in the course of my judicial career. As a practicing attorney, I have handled adoptions, divorces and have served as a guardian ad litem for minors and mentally diminished individuals hundreds of times.
Having raised two children to adulthood with my wife of twenty-eight years, I believe I have a true understanding of the demands of family, and with my broad legal background feel that I am uniquely qualified to take on the challenges of family court.
I have developed a good degree on computer literacy. I helped to computerize a multi-judge court and served as consultant to selection of hardware and software. I have written computer programs and organized a computer users group. With the demands of courts today, computer literacy is critical for judges in legal research and day-to-day operations."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Brown meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service in the Family Court.
Mr. Brown was born on June 2, 1940. He is 57 years old and a resident of Gaffney, South Carolina. Mr. Brown provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1967.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Brown reported that he is a partner in BCT Associates with his law partner, James Thompson, which engages in real estate investments. If his partnership poses a conflict, he would sell it or have it conveyed to a blind trust.
Mr. Brown testified that he had no campaign expenditures to date.
Mr. Brown 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. Brown testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Brown provided that during the previous five years he has met or exceeded all CLE requirements. In most years, he has attended at least one seminar relating to county/municipal or electric cooperative law. The balance of hours included a cross-section of general law, including Family Law.
Mr. Brown reported that he had published the following articles in the S.C. Law Review:
(a) 18 S.C.L.R. 513
(b) 19 S.C.L.R. 116
(c) 19 S.C.L.R. 681
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Brown did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Brown did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Brown has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Brown was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Brown reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Brown appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Brown appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Brown was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.
After his graduation from law school, Mr. Brown worked as a Patent Examiner in the U.S. Patent Office in Washington from 1967-1968. From 1968-1969, he worked as a patent attorney with Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation in Toledo, Ohio. From 1969-1970, he was an associate at Saint-Amand & Thompson in Gaffney, in general practice. From 1970 until present, Mr. Brown has been a partner at Saint-Amand, Thompson & Brown, practicing 30% corporate, 25% real estate, 22% domestic, 10% probate, 10% torts, and 3% other.
Mr. Brown reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Federal: 0
State: 5 to 10 times or more per year
Other: Average one or more times per week in Family, Probate, Magistrate and City Courts
Mr. Brown reported the percentage of his practice involved in civil, criminal, and domestic matters in the last five years as follows:
Civil: Approximately 75% including probate, real estate corporate, and tort
Criminal: Approximately 3% or less
Domestic: Approximately 22%
Mr. Brown reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years that involved matters that went to a jury as follows:
Jury: 10%
Non-jury 90%
·Mr. Brown listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Davis v. United Cities Gas Co., (88-CP-11-159). Defended Gas Company against landowners who claimed company was negligent in causing gas hot water heater explosion and fire damages to their residence. The case resulted in a jury verdict for the Defendant and was difficult because of the obvious sympathy for the landowners' losses and because of technical considerations required in defending the company.
(b) Gaffney Properties as an affiliate of Boyd Management v. Lee. S. Harmon, Cherokee County Assessor (November 1995). This case involved an appeal from the local Tax Appeal Board to the Administrative Law Judge and was an attack on methods the County used in appraising and assessing subsidized multiple family housing property. A brief in support of the County's position and Order of the Honorable Ray N. Stevens, Administrative Law Judge, which substantially reflects the County's position, is submitted herewith. This case is significant because if the Petitioner had prevailed, county tax revenues would have been materially reduced. The issues raised also had statewide implications.
(c) Montgomery v. Montgomery, 92-DR-11-514, (Orders April 8, 1991 and January 20, 1993) I represented the husband in this matter and cite the case because I consider it to be representative of many domestic cases involving issues of custody and property division.
(d) Estate of Frank H. Webber (Probate Court, Cherokee County). This case is a partition action involving many heirs, known and unknown. It is cited simply because it involved property and estate issues, and is representative of the many detailed non-jury actions I have participated in.
(e) Little v. Trexler's Rollerland, Inc. dba Rollerland of Gaffney (86-CP-11-448). This case involved injuries sustained by my client when she took her child to a local skating rink. The injuries were caused by a third party patron. The verdict resulted in actual and punitive damages and is cited because of the difficulty in establishing the duty owed by the rink in protecting its patrons from the negligence of others.
·Mr. Brown listed three domestic and two criminal defense appeals he had personally handled.
(a) Hamrick v. Summey, 282 S.C. 424, 320 S.E.2d 703 (1984).
(b) Galloway v. Galloway, 80-DR-11-512 (1981) Rule 23 Opinion.
(c) Powell v. Parris, 95-CP-11-200 (1995) Court of Appeals.
(d) State v. Wheeler & Erwin, 259 S.C. 571, 193 S.E.2d 515 (1972) (criminal defenses appeal).
(e) State v. James Hoyle Hart, Jr. 85-GS-11-08 (1985) Rule 23 opinion (criminal defense appeal).
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Brown's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Brown is married to Charlotte P. Brown and has two children: Wesley L. Brown, Jr. (age 35, pharmacist) and Robert M. Brown (age 32, architect).
Mr. Brown reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar
(b) Cherokee County Bar (President 1973)
(c) American Bar Association
Mr. Brown provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Gaffney Kiwanis Club (Past President)
·Mr. Brown stated, "I have been involved as attorney for Cherokee County or Broad River Electric Cooperative, Inc. in at least four (4) major non-judicial matters which I consider to be significant:
(a) Sale of County-owned hospital to National Medical Enterprises, Inc.
(b) Development by the Coop of Cherokee Falls Hydro- Electric facility on Broad River.
(c) Development and renovation of old County-owned hospital building into an office and geriatrics facility known as Peachtree Centre (In association with Bond Counsel).
(d) County participation in development and 'fee in lieu' agreements in the development of Carolina Factory Shops Outlet Park on I-85. (In association with Bond Counsel).
All of the foregoing projects were complicated and involved unique issues. All required extensive time to complete."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Rucker meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Rucker was born on October 22, 1944. He is 53 years old and a resident of Newberry County. Judge Rucker provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Rucker.
Judge Rucker demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Rucker 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 Rucker testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Rucker testified that he had campaign expenditures under the reporting requirement of $100.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Rucker to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Rucker has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Rucker provided that during the previous five years he had attended the following JCLE courses and judicial conferences:
6-14-93 Family Court Judicial Conference
8-26-93 Judicial Conference
11-4-93 Best Interest of Children
6-20-94 Orientation School for Family Court Judges
6-4-94 Lawyers Caring About Kids
8-25-94 Judicial Conference
8-19-94 Juvenile Crime
6-21-95 Family Court Judges' Conference
8-24-95 Judicial Conference
11-17-95 Family Law Bench/Bar Update
6-26-96 Family Court Judges Conference
8-8-96 Trial Lawyers CLE
8-22-96 Judicial Conference
1-3-97 Seminar for Chief Administrative Judges
3-6-97 Governor's Conference on Youth Crime
8-21-97 Judicial Conference
Judge Rucker reported that in 1996 he was a speaker and panel member at the Child Support Decision-Making 2000, National Child Support Enforcement Association Conference in Washington D.C.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Rucker did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Rucker did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Rucker has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Rucker was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Rucker reported that as a member of the judiciary, his last available rating in Martindale-Hubbell was "BV".
Judge Rucker was elected Recorder by the City of Newberry and served from 1971 until 1976.
Judge Rucker served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1976 until 1980.
Judge Rucker served as Commissioner with the South Carolina Tax Commission from 1984 until 1988.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Rucker appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Rucker appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Rucker was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Rucker has worked as an associate for Attorney Tench P. Owens from June 1969 until October 1969; as a sole practitioner from 1969 until 1988; and has been a Family Court Judge since 1988.
·Judge Rucker listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) McElveen v. McElveen, 94-DR-40-5024
Among the many issues presented to the court was the issue as to whether a buy sell agreement between husband and partners not entered into in contemplation of marital litigation was controlling as to value of the husbands interest in the partnership. This is an issue which had not been ruled upon in South Carolina. I ruled that it was controlling. This matter is presently under appeal.
(b) Chanko v. Chanko, Court of Appeals, opinion 2706 Filed July 28, 1997
Included in this case was the issue of whether TWOP Accounts (Time off with pay accounts) used by some businesses rather than sick leave or vacation days are income to be added to the employee's gross income for child support purposes. I determined that this was not be included in the gross income. This was upheld by the Court of Appeals.
(c) Snook v. Snook, 97-DR-36-11
Issue as to whether South Carolina Family Court or the Courts of another state had jurisdiction to determine custody of a minor child when child had along with parents moved to another state and remained for five months until mother and child moved back to South Carolina. Father contended that mother did not make evident her intention to remain in South Carolina until she filed custody action several months later. The statute in issue was the portion of the UCCJA (S.C. Code 20-7- 786(5))(1996) which states "Periods of temporary absence of any such persons are counted as part of the six month period." Case turned on factual issues. I ruled that South Carolina had jurisdiction under provisions of the UCCJA.
(d) Richardson v. Richardson, 95-DR-36-0588
This case involved the equitable distribution of a employer funded retirement plan for partners in the firm. The husband had been a partner for approximately four years at the time of filing of the marital litigation. The partnership agreement required that an individual be a partner for seven years before the retirement vested. I ruled that under the terms of the partnership agreement the non contributory retirement benefits had not become marital property and denied the wife any interest in the retirement. Another issue in this case was the ownership of a Gamecock Club membership. This membership was obtained by the husband several years prior to the marriage and after the parties separation the husband maintained the contribution level, I ruled that the Gamecock Club membership was the property of the husband.
(e) Seymore v. Seymore, 94-DR-30-833
This action was one for divorce on fault grounds. The parties had been married in excess of 30 years. The parties had accumulated substantial assets many through inheritance. Many of the inherited assets had been co-mingled. Court was faced with the task of determining what constituted marital assets. This task was further complicated by transfers of investment accounts by one of the parties after the commencement of the action.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Rucker's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Rucker is married to Harriett S. Lee Rucker and they have two children: John B. Rucker, age 23, a graduate student at the University of South Carolina, and Wylie M. Rucker, age 22, a student at Newberry College.
Judge Rucker reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar
(b) American Bar Association
(c) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association; (President 1996-97), (Secretary-Treasurer 1995-96)
Judge Rucker provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Central United Methodist Church
(b) Mason, Shriner
(c) Rotary Club of Newberry
(d) Country Club of Newberry
·Judge Rucker stated, "I know of no matters which would adversely affect my nomination for re-election."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Segars- Andrews meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Segars-Andrews was born on January 23, 1957. She is 40 years old and a resident of Charleston County. Judge Segars-Andrews provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Segars-Andrews.
Judge Segars-Andrews demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Segars-Andrews testified that she 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 Segars-Andrews testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Segars-Andrews testified that she had campaign expenditures under the reporting requirement of $100.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Segars-Andrews to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Segars-Andrews has met expectations in the areas of professional and academic ability.
Judge Segars-Andrews provided that during the previous five years she has attended the following JCLE courses and judicial conferences:
8-19-93 SCTLA 1993 Annual Convention
8-26-93 SCCA Judicial Conference
6-14-93 TJCSO Family Court Judicial Conference
10-4-93 SCSA Solicitors Conference
11-4-93 SCB Serving the Best Interest of Children
12-13-93 Family Court Judge Conference
4-13-94 ABA Family Law Section Spring CLE Conference
6-20-94 SCCA Orientation School for Family Court Judges
6-4-94 SCB Special Bench/Bar Symposium: Lawyers Caring About Kids
8-25-94 SCCA Judicial Conference
8-19-94 SCB Juvenile Crime: A Special Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar
4-13-95 SCB Custody and Visitation Decision-Making When There are Allegations
6-21-95 SCCFCJ South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges' Conference
8-24-95 SCCA Judicial Conference
11-17-94 SCB Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar
6-26-96 FCJA Family Court Judges Conference Judicial Implementation of Permanency
8-8-96 SCTLA 1996 Annual Convention
8-22-96 SCCA Judicial Conference
1-3-97 SCCA Judicial Conference
3-6-97 SCCFP Governor's Conference on Youth Crime
6-27-97 SCCA Seminar of Chief Judges for Circuit and Family Court
8-14-97 Trial Lawyers Association Conference
8-22-97 Judicial Conference
Judge Segars-Andrews reported that she has lectured on the following legal and judicial issues:
1992 Speaker (Family Court Bench/Bar)
1995 & 1996 Speaker (New Judges School)
1995 & 1997 Speaker (Family Court Section of Bar)
1996 Speaker (Domestic Violence at Medical University of South Carolina)
1997 Speaker (Chief Judges School)
1997 Speaker (Women's Bar Association)
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Segars-Andrews did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Segars-Andrews did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Segars-Andrews has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Segars-Andrews was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Segars-Andrews reported that as a member of the judiciary she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Segars-Andrews appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Segars-Andrews appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Segars-Andrews was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.
Since her graduation from law school, Judge Segars-Andrews has worked as a litigation advisor/negotiator with American Mutual Fire Insurance Company from 1984 until 1985; as an associate at the law firm of Bell & McNeil from 1985 until 1987; as a sole practitioner from 1987 until 1993; and as a Family Court Judge since 1993.
·Judge Segars-Andrews listed her five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Thomas Prince Howes v. Donna Marie Burke Howes v. Grace Elizabeth Howes; 97-DR-10-1409.
(b) Victoria Faith Ronan v. Michael D. Ronan, II; 97- DR-10-3492.
(c) Deborah Jean Hall v. Kimuel Wayne Lee; 93-DR- 10-1061; Appellate review: Opin Num: 95-MO-337.
(d) Caroline Lose Cleveland v. William H. Cleveland, Jr.; 93-DR-10-7679; Appellate review: Opin Num: 96-UP-443.
(e) Charleston County DSS v. Janet M. Williamson and Tarrence C. Cox, ; IN THE INTEREST OF: Moriah Williamson, A MINOR UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS; 92-DR-10-2122.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Segars-Andrews' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Segars-Andrews is married to Mark O. Andrews and they have two children: Kelly D. Andrews, age 10 and J. Matheson Andrews, age 7.
Judge Segars-Andrews reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) National Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges
Judge Segars-Andrews provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) St. Andrews Episcopal Church
Judge Segars-Andrews provided the following boards or committees on which she has served during the past five years:
(a) South Carolina Aquarium
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Bridges meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Bridges was born on March 30, 1945. She is 52 years old and a resident of Charleston County. Judge Bridges provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Bridges.
Judge Bridges demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Bridges reported that she 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 Bridges testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Bridges testified that she had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Bridges to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Bridges has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Bridges provided that during the previous five years she has attended the following JCLE courses and judicial conferences:
1-17-92 Mid-Winter Mtg.
7-12-92 Nat'l Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges Conf.
11-13-92 Family Court Bench/Bar Late '92 Update
6-03-93 Annual Meeting of Family Law Section
6-14-93 Family Court Judicial Conference
8-19-93 1993 Annual Convention
8-26-93 Judicial Conference
10-06-93 Children in Court
11-04-93 Serving the Best Interests of Children
12-13-93 Family Court Judges Conf. Reasonable Efforts
2-18-94 Bench/Bar Conference of Child Welfare Reform
4-13-94 Family Law Section-1994 Spring CLE Conference
6-04-94 Special Bench/Bar Symposium: Lawyers Caring About Kids
8-11-94 Annual Convention- Family Law Section
8-19-94 Juvenile Crime: A Special Family
8-25-94 Judicial Conference
1-13-95 Mid-Year Meeting: Family Law Section
5-05-95 Representing Children in Family Court
6-03-95 Family Law-Bankla
6-21-95 1995 South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges
8-10-95 SC Trial Lawyers Conv.
8-24-95 Judicial Conference
11-17-95 Marital Litigation Update
6-28-96 Family Court Judges Meeting: Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning Reform
8-08-96 1996 Annual Convention
8-22-96 Judicial Conference
12-06-96 Family Court Bench/Bar Update
1-03-97 Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes
3-06-97 Governor's Conf. on Youth Crime
8-14-97 SCTLA 1997 Convention
8-20-97 Judicial Conference
Judge Bridges reported that she has lectured on the following legal and judicial issues:
11-05-93 Panel member - "Serving the Best Interests of Children" (SC Bar CLE)(One of three judges for Questions and Comments segment of seminar)
3-18-94 Speaker - "Women of Achievement Awards Luncheon" (Governor's Office, Commission on Women)(Speech focusing on making your dreams come true - i.e., never give up.)
1-14-95 Speaker - "Task Force on Justice" (SC Bar-CLE Seminar)(Family Court issues speech.)
5-05-95 Moderator - "Representing Children in Family Court" Seminar. (SC Bar);
8-10-95 Speaker - South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention - (SCTLA)(Speech based on researching attorneys state-wide on "Have You Felt that the Practice of Law Isn't Fun Any More".)
10-18-95 Speaker - "Children at Risk, from the Family Court Perspective" (League of women voters of the Charleston Area)(Speech Re: Identify, Problems and Solutions for at risk children from a Family Court Perspective.)
10-20-95 Speaker - Bench/Bar Luncheon meeting (Charleston Co. Bar)(Update of August 10, 1995 speech.)
1-03-97 Speaker - Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Process of the Family Courts ("Scheduling Complex Cases" - guidelines for Chief Administrative Judges.)
(4) Character:
Judge Bridges reported that she has never been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics. She also reported that complaints filed against her in 1985 and 1991 were dismissed and that she is not aware of any pending complaints. The Commission's investigation of Judge Bridges did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Bridges has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Bridges was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Bridges reported that as a member of the judiciary she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Bridges previously served as Associate Municipal Court Judge for the City of Charleston from 1978 to 1983.
Judge Bridges received the Certificate of Appreciation, from the US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Bridges appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Bridges appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Bridges was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Since her graduation from law school, Judge Bridges has worked as an Associate of Leonard Krawcheck Law Office and as Assistant Corporation Council to the City of Charleston from 1977 until 1978; as Associate Municipal Court Judge for the City of Charleston from 1978 until 1983; as Family Court Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3 since 1983.
·Judge Bridges listed her five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) 92-DR-10-4967; TIMOTHY A. RAKAR v. SUZANNE MORGAN.
(b) 94-DR-10-0264; JOAN K. LOGOTHETIS v. WILLIAM J. LOGOTHETIS and LILLIAN READ.
(c) 94-DR-10-4410; JOYCE W. MITCHUM and RUSSELL C. MITCHUM v. DEMETRIOS A. PAHNO.
(d) 95-DR-10-2003; SHARON H. BALZANO v. ALBERT NED BALZANO.
(e) OPINION No. 2692; SONYA LYNN PITTS v. BRIAN TODD OLDS.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Bridges' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Bridges is married to Sarah Leland Bridges, and they have one daughter: Sarah Leland Bridges, age 15.
Judge Bridges reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) Charleston County Bar
- Executive Committee, 1980
- Family Law Committee, 1982
(b) South Carolina Bar
-Family Law Section Secretary, 1981-1983
-Family Law SubCommittee of Practice and Procedure Committee, 1981-1983
-Practice and Procedure Committee, 1981-1983
-Young Lawyers Executive Committee and District Representative, 1981
-Task Force on Justice For All, 1994-Present
(c) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
-Family Law Section Co-Chairman, 1981-1983
(d) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association
-Secretary-Treasurer, 1993
-Vice President, 1994
-President, 1995
(e) South Carolina Supreme Court Joint Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution
-Family Court Mediation Committee
Judge Bridges provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Grace Episcopal Church - Lay Eucharistic Minister
(b) Grace Episcopal Church - Alter/Flower Guild
(c) Grace Episcopal Church - Chalice Bearer
(d) Grace Episcopal Church - Building and Grounds Committee for Memorial Garden
(e) Church Participant in operation of Charleston Interfaith Crisis Ministry
(f) The Garden Club of Charleston
(g) The Gibbes Museum of Art
·Judge Bridges stated, "In addition to my position as a resident Family Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, I have also been Chief Administrative Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, particularly in Beaufort. I assumed these additional responsibilities in anticipation of being able to assume administrative responsibilities in the Ninth Judicial Circuit. Subsequently, I did assume the additional responsibility as Chief Administrative Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit for two one-year terms. I have been a Family Court Judge for 14 years and I have endeavored to be fair, impartial, patient, and courteous. I consider Family Court cases to be the most important cases in our system and I consider it an honor to serve in this Court."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Landis meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Landis was born on June 3, 1955. He is 42 years old and a resident of Berkeley County. Judge Landis provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Landis.
Judge Landis demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Landis 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 Landis testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Landis testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately $54.50.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Landis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Landis provided that during the previous five years he has exceeded C.L.E. requirements for his position as an attorney and also the mandatory J.C.L.E. requirements for his position as Municipal Judge. He has emphasized attendance pertaining to family law for his C.L.E. requirements and to criminal law such as DUI, criminal domestic violence, and traffic related offenses for his Municipal Judgeship requirements.
Judge Landis reported that he has written seminar material for the seminar on Paralegals in Family Law Practice. He also taught a seminar on May 14, 1997, in Charleston, S.C. on Paralegals in Family Law.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Landis did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Landis did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Landis has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Landis was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(6) Reputation:
Judge Landis reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
Judge Landis provided that he was the recipient of the following awards:
(a) Service Award - Berkeley County Commission for Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 1990
(b) S.C. Pro Bono Service Award, 1994
(c) Certificate of Appreciation - Berkeley County School District, 1993.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Landis appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Landis appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Landis was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Landis has practiced law as a part-time Berkeley County Assistant Public Defender from 1980 - 1984; from 1980 - 1984 he was also a sole practitioner, with an emphasis on the general practice of law, including domestic actions, real estate, personal injury and criminal defense. From 1984 to 1989, he was a partner in Williams and Landis, a general practice with an emphasis on domestic and family law. From 1989 - 1993, he was a partner with Dennis, Dennis and Landis, a general practice with an emphasis on domestic and family law. From 1993 - present, he has been a sole practitioner with an emphasis on domestic and family law. He has also served as the Municipal Judge of the City of Moncks Corner since 1987.
Judge Landis reported that the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal:2 to 3 times within the last five years
(b) state: approximately 5 times per week
(c) other: magistrates: approximately two times per month
Judge Landis reported the percentage of his practice during the past five years as follows:
(a) civil: 05%
(b) criminal: 05%
(c) domestic: 90%
Judge Landis reported the percentage of his practice in trial courts during the last five years as follows:
(a) jury: 05%
(b) non-jury: 95%
He most often served as sole counsel.
·Judge Landis listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Betty C. Francis v. Edward Francis. This matter was significant in that I was able to gain considerable experience on both the trial and appellate levels very soon after my completion of law school. This was a domestic matter which involved all possible questions arising from a marital relationship including divorce, child custody, visitation, child support, alimony and equitable division of property. The Defendant, Edward Francis, was represented by several different attorneys during the course of litigation.
This case afforded me my first opportunity to appear before the South Carolina Supreme Court. The first exposure was to defend a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas filed by Mr. Francis' then attorneys, Randall Chastain and Isadore Lourie.
My client, Betty Francis, ultimately prevailed, was awarded custody, child support, alimony, and substantial properties as her portion of equitable division.
(b) Wayne Dalton Corporation v. Acme Door, et al., 394 S.E.2d 5 302 (S.C. 1993) (S.C. App. 1990). This matter was significant in that it was one of the few non-domestic civil appeals which I handled. This was a case heard by the Court of Appeals in April of 1990. I represented a manufacturer and distributor of garage and overhead doors which had been a supplier to a business in Berkeley County, South Carolina. The original accounts were guaranteed personally by the then owner of the company. The then owner of the company, subsequent to the personal guarantee, sold the company to another individual without receiving a formal release of the personal guarantees.
At the hearing before the Master-in-Equity, my client was unsuccessful in obtaining a judgment against the original owner of the company based upon his personal guarantee. I appealed the matter to Circuit Court which reversed the Master-in-Equity and found that the original owner of the company was, in fact, liable on the accounts. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court with the matter being referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Circuit Court finding that there had been a novation of the personal guarantees by the actions of all parties involved, those being the manufacturer and distributor of the doors, the original owner of the company, and the subsequent purchaser even though no formal or written releases had been given as to the personal guarantees.
I believe this matter was a reported decision in that it modified the case law regarding novation.
Although unsuccessful in defending this appeal, I found the entire process and experience to be rewarding and educational.
(c) Purdie v. Smalls, 359 S.E.2d 306, 293 SC 216. This matter was another case that I handled that was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court and referred to the Court of Appeals for South Carolina. This case was significant because it ultimately resulted in a definition and clarification of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act as codified in the South Carolina Code of Laws 1979 as amended.
This matter involved my client who was a resident of New York and who had been awarded the temporary custody of the minor child of the parties by the appropriate New York Court. The mother of the child, Ms. Smalls, had removed the child from New York to South Carolina during the pendency of the New York action and had subsequently secreted the whereabouts of the child. The Family Court in Berkeley County upheld the Temporary Order from the State of New York and required that the minor child be given to the father and returned to the State of New York.
The defendant, Ms. Smalls, by her attorney from the McNair Law Firm of Columbia, filed a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas with the Supreme Court. The Writ of Supersedeas was granted pending the decision on the appeal filed by the defendant.
The ultimate decision by the South Carolina Court of Appeals was for several years widely cited in the UCCJA cases and was the subject of at least one Law Review article. In my opinion this was a landmark case which helped to define the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act which was relatively new at the time of the lower Court hearing.
(d) Dave Creech v. Melissa Creech; I represented the husband and father of a then five year old child. The parties had separated and there were accusations of adultery and drug usage by each party as to the other. My client, the father, had returned to his home state of Ohio where he was living and working for an oil company which periodically required him to be in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, for extended periods of time.
The initial hearing in the matter lasted for a period of four and one-half days during which time we were able to show that the mother had substantial substance abuse problems which would affect her ability to care for the child. Mr. Creech was awarded the sole care and custody of the minor child subject to visitation by the mother and Mr. Creech was allowed to return to the state of Ohio with the child.
Subsequently, a Bench Warrant was issued by the Family Court for Berkeley County against the father for an alleged violation of visitation privileges by the mother. On behalf of my client, I filed a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas with the Supreme Court and same was granted.
This matter took on significance due to the different levels of State Court in which I appeared in behalf of my client, but also because it was a difficult case to try in that most of the evidence clearly indicated that the mother had largely been the primary caretaker of the child due to the employment status of the father, however, the substance abuse problems by the mother outweighed the evidence of her primary care.
(e) John T. Motte, Jr. v. Lucy C. Motte; This case was also a domestic matter which involved all elements arising from a marital relationship including custody, equitable division, alimony, child support, visitation, attorney's fees and divorce. I represented the father, John T. Motte, who acted as the manager and minority shareholder in a family owned grocery store enterprise. In its initial stages the matter was significant due to the extensive discovery that was necessary to be done in order to adequately prove the true income and financial resources of Mr. Motte as a result of the family owned business.
The matter was ultimately resolved by agreement between the parties on all issues.
Within one week after the approval of the agreement by the Court, allegations of both physical and sexual abuse were raised and the Department of Social Services became involved in this matter. Subsequently, both parties along with the minor child were required to seek counseling in order to resolve what essentially were matters relating to the inability of the parties to communicate with each other and for the well being of the child. Although, ultimately there was a finding of a potential for physical abuse there were no findings of actual abuse nor were there any findings of sexual abuse and the sexual abuse allegations were unfounded by the Department of Social Services.
Subsequently, the parties continued to abide by the original agreement, but due to down turn in the economy and the finances of the family owned business the father found it necessary to seek a modification of the child support payments. He was ultimately successful in a reduction in spite of claims of inaccurate or false statements regarding the value of the family owned business. This matter is significant due to the length of time from beginning to end and the different phases through which this matter passed. There were serious and substantial allegations of misconduct which had to be refuted and defended, there were substantial amounts of discovery, research, communications with accountants and business evaluators and ultimately success in achieving what is a reasonable and appropriate settlement between the parties that not only was fair and equitable to each of them, but also in the best interest of the minor child.
·Judge Landis listed five civil appeals he had personally handled.
(a) Purdie v. Smalls, Court of Appeals of South Carolina, August 10, 1987, 207 S.E.2d 306, 293 SC 216
(b) Dring v. Dring, Court of Appeals of South Carolina, January 25, 1994, Not reported
(c) Wilkerson v. Staton, Court of Appeals of South Carolina, February 14, 1995, Not reported
(d) Dawson v. Dawson, Court of Appeals of South Carolina, March 8, 1993, Not reported
(e) Norton v. Norton, Court of Appeals of South Carolina, April 28, 1993, Not reported
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Landis' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Landis is married to Sharon Renee Bennett Landis and has two children: Peter Bennett Landis (age 10) and Jane Curry Landis (age 7).
Judge Landis reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Berkeley County Bar Association
Judge Landis provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) First Presbyterian Church of Moncks Corner - former member of the session
(b) Moncks Corner Rotary Club - Vice President
(c) Salvation Army - former advisory counsel member
(d) Berkeley County Museum - former Director
(e) Berkeley Elementary School Improvement Council (Member, 1993-1994; Chairman, 1994-1995)
(f) Berkeley High School Mock Trial Team, Coach 1989-1993; SC State Champions 1989, 1991, 1993
·Judge Landis stated, "During the seventeen years that I have been in practice I have primarily focused on litigation in the Family, Circuit and Magistrate Courts of the State. Approximately 95% of my practice involves litigation and appellate work and for the last ten (10) years I have been the Municipal Judge for the Town of Moncks Corner.
I believe that my trial work in the Courts has given me considerable experience and knowledge in the procedural and substantive laws for our state and that my tenure as Municipal Judge has helped me develop judicial skills and the temperament necessary for the bench. Having been involved in trials on both sides of the bench and from having an opportunity to observe active Judges and the manner in which they preside over trials gives me what I believe to be the qualifications and experience necessary for the position of Family Court Judge."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Knobel meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Mr. Knobel was born on May 18, 1948. He is 49 years old and a resident of Anderson County. Mr. Knobel provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Knobel.
Mr. Knobel demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Knobel 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. Knobel testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Knobel testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately under $10.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Knobel to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Knobel provided that during the previous five years he has attended annually a series of C.L.E. programs, with an emphasis on family law programs. He is current with all of his C.L.E. requirements.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Knobel did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Knobel Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Knobel has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Knobel was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Knobel reported his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
Mr. Knobel is currently Chairman of the Anderson Area Transportation Study Committee (ANATS). He was elected chairman in 1997. This is an appointed position.
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Knobel appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Knobel appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Knobel was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Knobel has practiced law as an associate with Chapman & Lowery from 1974-1975; as a partner with Mattison & Knobel from 1975-1983; and as a sole practitioner from 1983 until the present. In his 24 years of law practice, Mr. Knobel has had a general practice that included trials at the various court levels. He has also performed real estate closings, handled probate and criminal matters, and Social Security disability cases and workers' compensation cases.
Mr. Knobel reported that during the past five years, the frequency of his court appearances were as follows:
(a) federal: none
(b) state: weekly (and almost daily in family court during some weeks)
Mr. Knobel reported that the percentage of his practice during the past five years as follows:
(a) civil: 29%
(b) criminal: 01%
(c) domestic: 70%
Mr. Knobel reported the percentage of his practice in trial courts during the past five years as follows:
(a) jury: 01%
(b) non-jury: 99%
He served most often as sole counsel.
·Mr. Knobel as a municipal judge did not require that he prepare any written orders or opinions. Therefore, Mr. Knobel listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Stringer Oil Company, Inc. V. Alton Bobo, dba Powdersville Exxon Station, C.A. No. 91-CP-04- 1448. This case was appealed and decided by the South Carolina Court of Appeals on October 16, 1995, in a published opinion (No. 2396). The case provided a sharper treatment of the elements necessary to establish the right of recovery under theories of quantum meruit.
(b) James Edison Erskine, III v. Janyl Leigh Campoli Deborah D. Wells and Joseph H. Wells v. James Edison Erskine, III and Janyl Leigh Campoli, 94- DR-04-937. This was a successful custody action on behalf of the paternal grandparents of a minor child.
(c) Ruby Gerisch and Rev. James Bannister v. Danny Lee Brooks, Danny Brooks and Linda Brooks, 94- DR-04-1355. This was a successful grandparent custody action. In this case the child's natural mother was deceased.
(d) Pamela Vickery Vaughn v. Timothy Michael Vaughn, 95-DR-04-2395. This was a divorce action, which also involved a paternity issue regarding a child born during the parties' marriage.
(e) Cynthia L. Hinnant v. C. William Hinnant, Jr., 96- DR-04-391. This was a complex divorce case (the Defendant is an Anderson area urologist.)
·Mr. Knobel listed civil appeals he had handled as follows:
(a) Cathy R. Skelton v. Franklin Andy Skelton, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Date of decision: March 13, 1989
(b) Margaret Brady Spillers v. Palmer Kenneth Spillers, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Date of decision: March 9, 1992
(c) Shawn M. Moody v. Warren L. Moody, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Date of decision: December 1, 1994
(d) Pamela Vickery Vaughn v. Timothy Michael Vaughn, South Carolina Court of Appeals; Appeal withdrawn by Appellant
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Knobel's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Knobel is married to Catherine Maria Calvo Knobel and has two children: Lauren Blair Knobel, 16 years; Andrew Benson Knobel, 13 years.
Mr. Knobel reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association - Chairman, Tenth Judicial Circuit; Resolution of Fee Disputes Panel
(b) Anderson County Bar Assn. - President
(c) American Bar Assn.
(d) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Assn.
Mr. Knobel provided that he was a member of the Anderson Country Club and was on the Board of Directors from 1996 - 1998.
·Mr. Knobel stated, "As the president of the Anderson County Bar Association I have created a Family Court Liaison Committee, consisting of a panel of family law practitioners who shall be meeting with our family court judges with an objective of making recommendations for the effective use of court time and procedures.
We have also created a pro bono program in order for the public to have ready access to Anderson attorneys for free legal advice and counsel."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cureton meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Cureton was born on September 22, 1937. He is 60 years old and a resident of Oconee County. Judge Cureton provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1963.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cureton.
Judge Cureton demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Cureton 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 Cureton testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Cureton testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Cureton to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Cureton has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Cureton provided that during the previous five years he had attended more than the required number of J.C.L.E. programs, including the Annual Judicial Conference and many family law seminars.
Judge Cureton reported that he had lectured on the following legal and judicial issues:
(a) Jan. 25, 1980 Attorneys' Fee - What to Prove
(b) Oct. 28, 1983 Family Court Perspective
(c) Aug. 23, 1985 Proving Entitlement to Attorneys' Fees
(d) Jan. 21, 1989 Rules of Family Court - Problem Areas
(e) Aug. 1990 Alimony - New Judges' Seminar
(f) Aug. 1991 Alimony - New Judges' Seminar
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Cureton did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cureton did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cureton has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Cureton was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Cureton reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV".
Judge Cureton served in the U.S. Army Inf. From 1959-1960, and in the U.S. Army Reserve (INF and JAGC) from 1960-1970. He received an Honorable Discharge.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Cureton appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Cureton appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Cureton was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1963.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Cureton has practiced law as an associate with Holcombe & Bomar from 1963 to 1967; as a partner with Holcombe, Bomar & Cureton from 1967 to 1975; as Judge of Civil, Criminal & Family Court of Oconee County from 1975 to 1977; and as a Family Court Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit since June 1977.
·Judge Cureton listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) S.C. Department of Social Services v. Mother. Involved termination of parental rights - Heard in 1992. Appealed to Court of Appeals, 93-UP-038 (Unpublished).
(b) Frank L. Whisnant v. Karen B. Whisnant. A complex case involving child support, medical expenses and attorney's fees. (93-DR-37-365).
(c) Anita R. Hudson v. Michael A. Hudson. A divorce action that involved division of property. (94-DR-37-761, Order dated June 8, 1995).
(d) Nancy Marie Morgan v. Robert Earl Morgan. A divorce action with contested issues of divorce, custody, alimony, division of property and attorneys' fees. (94-DR-37-824, Order dated Nov. 25, 1996).
(e) Patricia Cheryl Thomas v. Kenneth Davis Thomas. A lengthy case involving issues of custody, division of property, payment of college expenses, and child support. (95-DR-07-1369, Order dated Jan. 20, 1997).
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Cureton's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Cureton is married to Betsy Stockman Wood and has three children: Denise C. Morgan (age 33, Engineer - Housewife); Patricia C. Terry (age 31, Engineer - Housewife); and Kimberly Cureton (age 25, Vet. Asst.).
Judge Cureton reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association (Circuit Vice President - 1967)
(b) American Bar Association
(c) National Council, Juvenile and Family Court Judges
(d) South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges, President 1985 - 1986
(e) S.C. Judicial Council, 1989 - present
Judge Cureton provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
(a) Seneca Presbyterian Church (Elder, Trustee, Clerk of Session)
(b) Spartan Lodge #70 (Chancellor)
(c) Hejaz Shrine Temple
(d) Bohaynee Club, Inc. (aka Tri-State Fishing Club), President, Secretary
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Allen meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Mr. Allen was born on April 13, 1951. He is 46 years old and a resident of Lexington County. Mr. Allen provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Allen 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. Allen testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Allen testified that the only campaign expenditures he had relate to his letter of announcement regarding his candidacy and postage. Mr. Allen further testified that the amount was less than $100.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Allen to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Allen provided that during the previous five years, he has completed all the required continuing legal education courses and ethics education hours annually.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Allen did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Allen did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Allen has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Allen was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Allen reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV".
Mr. Allen reported that he has held the following public offices:
(a) County Council Appointee to Lexington Medical Center Board of Trustees (1981-1984)
(b) Governor's Appointee to Joint Legislature Committee on Solid Waste (1988 -1991)
(c) Governor's Appointee to Advisory Committee for the Improvement of Workers' Compensation Law (1990-1995)
(d) Appointed to Commission on Lawyer Conduct (formerly Grievance Commission)(1/1/97 to present).
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Allen appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Allen appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Allen was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Allen practiced at the Greenville County Public Defender's Office from 1976 until 1978, assigned to general sessions and family court cases. He then practiced at the firm of Kirkland, Wilson, Moore, Allen, Taylor & O'Day, P.A. from 1978 until 1997. His focus was a general trial practice with emphasis on civil and family court.
Mr. Allen reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: frequent
(b) state: frequent
(c) other: Family Court - frequent
Mr. Allen reported the percentage of his practice during the last five years as follows:
(a) civil: 60%
(b) criminal: 05%
(c) domestic: 35%
Mr. Allen reported the percentage of his practice in trial courts during the last five years as follows:
(a) jury: 50%
(b) non-jury: 50%
He serves most often as sole counsel.
·Mr. Allen listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Chambers of South Carolina, Inc. v. Entrepreneur, Inc., 354 S.E.2d 921, 292 S.C. 97 - My client, the plaintiff, successfully appealed a directed verdict by the trial judge. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial Court and ruled for the plaintiff. This is a frequently cited case for the doctrine of apparent authority.
(b) Accordini v. Security Cent., Inc., 320 S.E.2d 713, 283 S.C. 16 - My client, the plaintiff, successfully appealed the trial Court's sustaining of the defendant's demurrer. The case was reversed in favor of the plaintiff by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. This was an "important question of novel impression in South Carolina". It establishes law in the area of foreseeability and proximate cause.
(c) Delk v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., Memorandum Opinion No. 91-MO-102 - The Delk case went up on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court at the same time as South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mooneyham, 405 S.E.2d 306, ___ S.C. ___ (1991). The position of my client, plaintiff, was affirmed by the Mooneyham decision. These cases established via declaratory judgment motorist's entitlement to stack underinsured motorist coverage.
(d) Snipes v. McAndrew, 313 S.E.2d 294, 280 S.C. 320 - My client, a school principal, was plaintiff in litigation concerning his job assignment. This was a companion case with Shaw v, McAndrew, et al., 313 S.E.2d 294, 280 S.C. 320, in which the plaintiff was represented by current Supreme Court Justice Toal. The case defined the parameters of the Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act. The litigation analyzed the Act with respect to Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
(e) Tethel Strother v. Columbia OB/GYN Associates, P.A. and John F. Hooker, Jr., M.D., Opinion No. 95-UP-098 (S.C. Ct. App. April 13, 1995), Cert. Denied by Order of the South Carolina Supreme Court November 2, 1995. - This case involved complex medical malpractice litigation wherein trial resulted in a $500,000.00 award for my client, the plaintiff. The case was appealed with the verdict affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Certiorari was denied by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
·Mr. Allen listed three civil appeals he had personally handled:
(a) Lacy W. Brigman, III v. Amaryllis P. Brigman Ford, A. Lewis Powell and Ms. Doris G. Powell, South Carolina Supreme Court, December 30, 1982, Memorandum Opinion 82-MO-390
(b) Roof v. Roof, South Carolina Supreme Court, 378 S.E.2d 251, 98 S.C. 58 (1989)
(c) South Carolina Dept. of Social Services v. Wheaton, South Carolina Supreme Court, 474 S.E.2d 156 (1996)
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Allen's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Allen is married to Jane Inman Allen and they have two children: Jennifer Inman Allen, age 16 and David Kellum Allen, age 14.
Mr. Allen reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Lexington County Bar Association (President, 1986)
(c) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(d) Commission on Lawyer Conduct.
Mr. Allen provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Citizens Committee for passage of Lexington County School District II Bond Referendum (Chairman in successful effort to pass a Bond Referendum in May of 1995)
(b) Mt. Hebron United Methodist Church (Adult and youth Sunday School teacher; MYF leader; and Chairman of numerous church committees)
(c) Republican Party (President of the Quail Hollow precinct since 1986)
(d) Quail Hollow Community Association
(e) Lexington School District II Steering Committee
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Bernardin meets the qualifications prescribed by law.
Ms. Bernardin was born on August 17, 1960. She is 37 years old and a resident of Lexington County. Ms. Bernardin provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Bernardin.
Ms. Bernardin demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Bernardin testified that she 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.
Ms. Bernardin testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Bernardin testified that she had campaign expenditures of approximately $10.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Ms. Bernardin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Bernardin provided that during the previous five years, she has attended the following continuing legal education courses:
(a) 1997 - Domestic Practice Hot Tips by the Experts, South Carolina Solicitors' Conference
(b) 1996 - Expert Witnesses in Child Abuse Cases, South Carolina Solicitors' Conference, Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar
(c) 1995 - Representing Children as a Guardian, The Proposed New SC Rules of Evidence, South Carolina Solicitors' Conference, Criminal Practice in South Carolina
(d) 1994 - Ethical Issues Facing Government Lawyers, Juvenile Crime: Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar, Criminal Defense in South Carolina
(e) 1993 - Sexual Assault Seminar, South Carolina Solicitors' Conference
Ms. Bernardin also reported that she has lectured at the following courses or seminars:
(a) 1996 - Family Court Bench/Bar Conference - "Juvenile Statutory and Legislative Update" SC Bar
Perspectives on Victims and Criminal Justice - Court Perspective, South Carolina Prosecution Coordination Commission and South Carolina Division of Victim Assistance
(b) 1994 - Family Court Bench/Bar - Juvenile Crime Seminar, "Competency of Juveniles" SC Bar
(c) 1992 - Family Court Spring Bench/Bar Conference, "Nuts and Bolts: Procedural and Constitutional Issues" SC Bar
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Bernardin did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Bernardin did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Bernardin has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Bernardin was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. Bernardin reported that she is not rated in the Martindale-Hubbell because of her service as a public sector attorney.
Ms. Bernardin also reported that she was the recipient of the Silver Scales of Justice Award and the 1997 Ernest F. Hollings Awards for Excellence in State Prosecution.
(6) Physical health:
Ms. Bernardin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Ms. Bernardin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Bernardin was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.
Since her graduation from law school, she was employed with the Department of Youth Services (currently the Department of Juvenile Justice) in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner from 1986 until 1987 in which she continued an internship/clerkship from law school and graduate school. Thereafter, she served as an assistant solicitor for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit from 1988 until 1995. She prosecuted juvenile cases. From 1996 until the present, she serves as deputy solicitor for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, where she is responsible for the Juvenile Prosecution Section.
Ms. Bernardin reported the frequency of her court appearances as follows:
(a) federal:
(b) state: 100%
Ms. Bernardin reported the percentage of her practice as follows: (a) civil:
(b) criminal: 100%
(c) domestic:
Ms. Bernardin reported the percentage of her practice in trial courts as follows: (a) jury:
(b) non-jury: 100%
·Ms. Bernardin listed her five most significant litigated matters as follows:
The juvenile cases I have prosecuted are confidential and should not be described in a manner which would identify the juvenile. Criminal cases are always significant to the victims no matter how minor they appear to be to others. I will be happy to discuss the kinds of cases I have prosecuted, which include many violent crimes such as criminal sexual conduct, armed robbery, and murder. I also have handled juvenile cases which have been transferred from juvenile court to general sessions court. Those cases can be identified by name and include:
(a) State vs. Raymond Tillman, Murder
(b) State vs. Ted Benjamin Powers, Murder
(c) State vs. Jamie Deas, Criminal Sexual Conduct/Armed Robbery
(d) State vs. Timothy and Craig Good, Murder
(e) State vs. Joseph Kelsey, Murder
Ms. Bernardin did not list any civil appeals she had personally handled.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Bernardin's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Bernardin is married to John A. Bernardin, Jr., and they have two children: Elizabeth Anne Bernardin, age 6 and Christopher Ryland Bernardin, age 3.
Ms. Bernardin reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Lexington County Bar Association.
Ms. Bernardin provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Lexington County Children's Center Board of Directors, Chair and Vice Chair
(b) Eleventh Circuit Arbitration Program Advisory Board
(c) Governor's Eleventh Circuit Youth Council Member
·Ms. Bernardin stated, "My employment and community activities in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit have provided me with an opportunity to pursue my interest in family and children's issues. My legal career is unique in that I have worked solely in family court. My interest in a family court judgeship stems from my desire to continue my work with families and children."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Bouknight meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Ms. Bouknight was born on November 12, 1960. She is 37 years old and a resident of Lexington County. Ms. Bouknight provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Bouknight.
Ms. Bouknight demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Bouknight testified that she 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.
Ms. Bouknight testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Bouknight testified that she had campaign expenditures of approximately $50.00 to $80.00.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Ms. Bouknight to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Bouknight provided that during the previous five years she has attended CLE courses on Family Court and Children's Issues to meet her required hours. Among those courses, have been:
(a) Family Court Bench Bar Update
(b) Ethics in Family Court
(c) Serving the Best Interests of Children
(d) Domestic Practice: Hot Tips from the Experts
(e) Marital Litigation in South Carolina
(f) Representing Children in Family Court
(g) Family Mediation Update
(h) Divorce Mediation Training for Professionals
Ms. Bouknight reported that she taught the following law related courses:
(a) Legal Writing for Paralegal Studies at Columbia Junior College
(b) Family Law and Business Law at Midlands Technical College
(c) Parenting Children of Divorce at Saxe Gotha Presbyterian Church (seven week course)
Ms. Bouknight reported that she had assisted in the preparation of a text book while a student in law school, but has never published an article of her own.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Bouknight did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Bouknight did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Bouknight has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Bouknight was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. Bouknight reported that she has not listed in Martindale-Hubbell.
Ms. Bouknight worked in retail management while she was in college, but has worked only legal jobs since the completion of law school. She was the manager of the Size 5-7-9 Shops at Columbia Mall.
(6) Physical health:
Ms. Bouknight appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Ms. Bouknight appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Bouknight was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1989.
Since her graduation from law school, Ms. Bouknight has served as a staff attorney with Finkel, Georgaklis, Goldberg and Sheftman, 1989-1990; as a sole practitioner from 1990-present.
Ms. Bouknight reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: occasionally
(b) state: occasionally
(c) other: Family Court - very frequently
She reported that she has appeared in court frequently in the last five years and that in some weeks she is in court once or twice a week and in some weeks every day.
Ms. Bouknight reported the percentage of her practice as follows:
(a) civil: 05% (including bankruptcy)
(b) criminal: 00% - one probation violation review
(c) domestic: 95%
Ms. Bouknight reported the percentage of her practice in trial courts as follows:
(a) jury: 2% in 1992 and 1993
She said she did magistrate's level work for a client who had a small business.
(b) non-jury: 98% (includes limited bankruptcy and a great deal of family court work)
She most often served as sole counsel.
·Ms. Bouknight listed her five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) William and Juanita Grant v. Dolly Pressley, (1995)
This case was not reported. The trial was held in September of 1996 and lasted one day in Greenwood County. At issue was the post divorce custody of a shy 12 year old black boy. I represented the father of the child and his wife. The father and his wife were very supportive of the child and very "in tune" with his needs. Custody at the time of divorce was placed with the mother. Subsequently, she abandoned him and left him to live with an abusive uncle and elderly grandfather. The mother of this child was oblivious to him or his needs. Ultimately, we ended up with a Guardian who was clueless about children, this one in particular and the child was left in the mother's custody. The Judge refused to allow a former Guardian to testify, he refused to allow any of the teachers or the therapist for the child to testify. I was unable to call these witnesses although I had served not only a Pretrial Brief upon opposing counsel but a witness list. Both were timely. I was told by the Judge, on the record, that the SC Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply to opposing counsel but only to me and the presentation of my case. Because of the irreparable harm the trial of this case did to this child and the clients that I represented they would not allow me to seek an appeal. I believe upon appeal the outcome would have been very different. I am bothered to this day that this child is a throw away and that our system of justice allowed this to happen.
I was so incensed by the injustice that was done not only to my client, but to this child that I offered to take this case to an appeal for costs only. However, my clients were so emotionally spent that they could not accept my offer. I still receive thank you notes from my clients. The notes make me feel very good. I cannot help but feel that somehow I failed because I was part of a system that did injustice to a family who looked to me for help.
(b) Martin Ring v. Sharon Ring, (1992)
This case was not reported. It was tried in Saluda County for one day in 1993. This was a case between the Parties for divorce and division of property only. I represented the Plaintiff. Thankfully, there were no children. The amazing component to this case was the explosive nature of the Defendant. The Plaintiff's grounds for divorce were adultery. The Defendant's counterclaim alleged physical cruelty. I was told by my client at the beginning of the case that he believed his wife to be mentally ill and perhaps with more than one personality. I did not take him seriously. I thought he was exaggerating. During the course of the case my personal safety was threatened. She told me she'd kill me and then went and purchased a gun. Upon her cross examination I witnessed a metamorphosis that, had I not seen, I would have never believed. Her eyes changed colors, her voice changed and she looked different. The very competent Judge left them as they came in ... still married.
From the mere facts of the case, it was very ordinary. However, I learned from the personal interaction that it is potentially dangerous to put yourself in the midst of marital conflict. I now take personal, physical threats very seriously. While I do not ever compromise the way I represent my client I feel that I am always cautious in dealing with individuals in stressful situations. I always strive to remember that while I deal daily with promises and bruised feelings, those with whom I deal are experiencing a traumatic life event from which they will carry scars for a lifetime. I try to be courteous to opposing Parties and counsel and understanding to the questions and confusion of my clients. Not every one is resilient and able to move forward.
(c) Lexington County DSS v. Cook and Bennett, et al.:
This case has not been litigated at a full scale trial upon the merits because the Department of Social Services has reached what it believes a good resolution for this child. However, it is yet to be seen if the child's mother will agree to the placement or if there will be a trial upon the merits. This case is important to mention because of the important children's issues in the matter. These are issues of which I believe one on the Family Court bench should be ever mindful. (Pending) This case is not reported. It remains subject to judicial review. I was appointed by DSS to serve in the capacity as the Guardian ad Litem for the child. The Child is a 15 year old boy. He has had strife with his parents since he was a baby. When he was very young his parents divorced. For nearly 14 years his mother denied access to his father. When he was approximately age 12 he began to experience problems with his stepfather which in turn caused problems between he and his mother. As time went by the relationship between he and his mother deteriorated. Ultimately, she contacted DJJ and reported to them that he was incorrigible. He was then placed in their custody. Some one then called DSS. Once he was out of DJJ he went into DSS custody. At the first hearing that was held after I was appointed I appeared for Court. DSS was going to recommend a treatment plan which included structure for the child and counseling for the family and the child. The child was to be returned home. The mother appeared only to tell DSS and the Court that she did not want the child and had no intentions of taking him home with her. I will never forget the look on the boy's face when he learned that his mother had not come to get him. However, try as I did, I was unable to get the child to show any emotion. It was clear to me that he did not understand why he had been abandoned but he refused to give in to any emotion. To show emotion at that moment would have been to acknowledge that at age 14 the whole world had let him down.
I became involved with the Foster Care Review Board in his placement. Ultimately, he was placed with his father. With love and care he has gotten a second chance.
From this case I learned that the spirit of a child is what holds for that child a hope for tomorrow. With a broken spirit there is no hope. With no hope anything bad is possible. As attorneys and judges I believe we have a duty to protect tomorrow. Children are our greatest resource.
(d) Puckett v. Puckett, (1993)
This case was not reported because it was not tried. Because of the issues which were at the focal point of this case I have included it as important. This case had hard, emotional issues with which a judge would need to be able to face head-on even if the outcome of her decision was not the most popular one. Being right does not always mean doing what is most popular. Had it been tried I have no doubt that it would have been appealed and reported. I represented the Father who wanted to sue his wife for divorce on the grounds of adultery because she admitted that she was a lesbian and had several affairs with other women. He is a Green Beret in the Army. During the pendency of my client's suit for divorce, he decided that he could not care for his two year old son because of his military schedule. At his urging, his parents intervened in our lawsuit and pled for custody of their grandchild. At a temporary hearing the paternal grandparents were granted custody. During the time the case was awaiting a final hearing date on the divorce the mother got the psychological help she needed in dealing with her gender and other emotional issues. With the aid of a good attorney and a therapist she transformed herself from a mental and emotional wreck to a self confident, productive young woman. Meanwhile, the two cases were bifurcated. The divorce was ultimately granted upon the grounds of a one year separation and the custody issue was set for trial. The contenders for custody were the lesbian mother and the paternal grandparents. This case was set for trial at a time when a homosexual parent petitioning for custody was a novel event. The father, my client, was supporting his parents' position and asking for them to be granted custody.
The issues in this case not only involved parent versus grandparent (third party) custody but whether or not one's gay lifestyle automatically renders one unfit to parent. By the time the trial date arrived the mother was in a monogamous gay relationship with a woman who was very loving both to her and the child and was very much a stable force in the mother's life.
In settling this case I reminded my client of what he had said he wanted. He had always maintained that he wanted what was best for his son. Until the mother decided to acknowledge her homosexuality she had been the parent who stayed at home with the child and cared for his every need. My client had been absent a great deal of the time because of his military service. The child was very bonded to his mother and was found by the therapists involved to actually have grieved for her when she returned him to his grandparents after her visits with him.
My client had to relinquish his pride in order to admit that his son needed his mother. The grandparents had to relinquish control in allowing the child to go back to an ex daughter in law whose lifestyle they found repulsive. The child lives with his mother but has extended visitation with his father. Because these parents were able to put aside their feelings for the sake of their child, he now has the benefit of two very different, but interesting parents who love him very much. As the Father's attorney I encouraged him to do the right thing. This was a case where a trial would have had long lasting consequences for all these Parties and most especially for this little boy. It is my belief that bridges would have been burned which could never have been reconstructed had a trial taken place.
As an attorney I love what I do. As an advocate I want to win. As a human being I understand that compromise carries with it rewards that may times out last the thrill of victory.
(e) Bickley v. Williams, (1995)
This case was tried for two days in November 1996. I was the Guardian ad Litem for the minor child. In this case the two parents of this child, Mr. Bickley and Ms. Williams, were married briefly. When the child was just a few months old Ms. Williams packed up and moved one day while Mr. Bickley was at work. She moved to a small town in Louisiana. Mr. Bickley brought an action in South Carolina to get his son back. He was told he had to bring the action in Louisiana. He brought the action in Louisiana. She was granted custody. (The judicial system is very different. The same judge that hears cases on traffic offenses also decides the fate of children). Mr. Bickley appealed in Louisiana upon jurisdictional issues. The Court of Appeals there found that South Carolina had jurisdiction. Mr. Bickley then brought the case again in South Carolina. I was appointed to replace the first Guardian that was appointed because of a conflict which arose.
Upon being summoned to the office of the sitting judge who heard the temporary issues I was presented with volumes of affidavits which had been submitted by both Parties. Ms. Williams affidavits included nude pictures of Mr. Bickley. The case went downhill from there. There were allegations of severe physical and emotional abuse by Mr. Bickley upon Ms. Williams and the minor child. There were allegations of Satanism, witchcraft and psychosis on the part of Ms. Williams by Mr. Bickley.
I traveled to Louisiana to do an investigation of Ms. Williams and her family. While I was never able to substantiate the allegations of witchcraft and satanic practices I believe that they do exist. Ms. Williams had a pattern of behavior which included alienating the child from his father including using fear tactics on the child to so and interfering with the visitation.
Mr. Bickley had been denied access to his child for months until I, as Guardian, brought a Motion for him to have meaningful contact with the child.
Prior to the trial I had made a recommendation for Mr. Bickley. Of course, Ms. Williams would not agree. Upon the trial of the case the sitting judge allowed a vast amount of evidence into the record which, in my opinion and that of Mr. Bickley's attorney, was not relevant. These items of evidence included the nude photographs which were taken prior to Mr. Bickley ever meeting Ms. Williams, Mr. Bickley's driving record which was more than ten years old, past criminal charges which occurred prior to the couple meeting and which were ultimately dismissed.
At the conclusion of a very emotionally charged trial, the Judge instructed counsel that he'd take the matter under advisement. He then wrote his own Final Order. The Order was particularly inflammatory towards Mr. Bickley. Both sides made Motions for Reconsideration. Nothing more than a scrivener's error was changed.
The child is placed with Ms. Williams in Louisiana. She continues to alienate the relationship between this young boy and his father and to obstruct the visitation. In my opinion the best interests of this child is not being served. Further, while it is true that Mr. Bickley did not have a past which would have been enjoyed by a clergyman, he made giant steps in changing not only his lifestyle but what was in his heart when he became a father. I believe it is important for attorneys and most especially for judges who sit upon the Family Court Bench to realize that many, if not most do not "live like us". That does not mean that they do not love their children or have the ability to be wonderful parents. I have seen far too many cases where wealth, privilege and power did not translate into good or even appropriate parenting skills. Sometimes one must look to see what a parent is willing to do for their child.
This case is presently pending on appeal.
Ms. Bouknight did not list any civil appeals she had personally handled. She reported that she had provided research and aid to fellow attorneys handling appeals, including advice and help with brief writing as well as listening to their proposed arguments. Two cases in which she served as a Guardian ad Litem were appealed. In each case her recommendation as Guardian and her fees were appealed. One case is presently pending, (Bickley). In the other case the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the verdict.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Bouknight's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Bouknight is married to Rudy Leon Bouknight and they have two children, one from a previous marriage. Bradelyn Julia Levi, age 9, and Justin Lee Bouknight, age 2.
Ms. Bouknight reported that she has been divorced twice. Both marriages were dissolved on the grounds of one-year separation. Ms. Bouknight was the moving party in both cases. Her first marriage was to Joseph Alvin Kleckley. They were divorced in June of 1983. Her second marriage was to Leayle Bradley Levi. They have one child together, Bradelyn. They were divorced in November of 1993.
Ms. Bouknight reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Lexington County Bar Association
(c) Associate Member of Academy of Family Mediators
Ms. Bouknight provided that she was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Alumni Member of the Criminal Justice Association
(b) Alumni Member of the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity
(c) Parent Board of the Montessori Early Learning Center (active member) (1992-1994)
(d) Parent Board of the Montessori Early Learning Center (inactive member -- advisory capacity) (1994-present)
(e) Redbank Elementary PTA (1994-1995)
(f) Supporting Parent of Heritage Christian Academy
·Ms. Bouknight stated, "I am very involved in my church. My family attends Saxe Gotha Presbyterian. I have taught Sunday School for several years. Presently I teach the singles class. I have taught 7th through 12th grade at various times. In addition to the Parenting class I taught at our church I did a team teaching effort in Reform Theology. I have currently volunteered to be a part of the Hospice program our church is organizing. I lost my Grandmother to cancer in July. I was fortunate enough to be able to balance my work schedule in such a way that I spent her last days caring for her. The Hospice program which provided care to us as a family meant a great deal to me.
I have participated in the SC Bar Pro Bono Program for several years. I accept Chapter 7 Bankruptcy cases on a Pro Bono basis. I also routinely waive my fees in DSS cases where I am appointed as a Guardian ad Litem.
For the last two years I have participated in a program which donates story books to kindergarten children in various local schools. I donated a set of these books to the kindergarten class where my daughter attends school this year."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Caldwell meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Caldwell was born on August 29, 1942. He is 55 years old and a resident of Florence County. Judge Caldwell provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1967.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Caldwell.
Judge Caldwell demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Caldwell 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 Caldwell testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Caldwell testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Caldwell to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Caldwell has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Caldwell provided that during the previous five years he had attended all JCLE Seminars offered by the S.C. Bar and the 1997 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Annual Meeting.
Judge Caldwell reported that he had lectured frequently at Family Court Judges Conferences, Judicial Conferences, JCLE Seminars, S.C. Trial Lawyers Conventions, S.C. Bar Conventions, Bridge the Gap for new lawyers, and he teaches ethics to new Family Court Judges.
Judge Caldwell reported that he has written and published the following books and articles:
(a) "Rules of Family Court Examined," S.C. Lawyer, March 1989.
(b) "The River is Great," Pee Dee Magazine, 1990.
(c) "The Mars Bluff Shooters," Pee Dee Magazine, 1992.
(d) "Judges are Human Too," S.C. Lawyer, June 1993.
(e) "Climbing Above the Clouds," S.C. Trial Lawyers, Fall 1994.
(f) "Joint Custody," The Conciliator, Winter 1994.
(g) "Climbing Above the Clouds," Idaho Trial Lawyers Assoc. Journal, Fall 1995.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Caldwell did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Caldwell did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Caldwell has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Caldwell was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Caldwell reported that as a member of the judiciary for seventeen years, he is unaware of his last Martindale- Hubbell rating.
Judge Caldwell served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1965-1971 and received an Honorable Discharge.
Judge Caldwell was appointed as Assistant Solicitor from 1974 to 1976; he was appointed as City Attorney of Florence from 1976 to 1977; and he was elected to the Florence County Council from 1977 to 1980.
Judge Caldwell provided that he was the recipient of the 1st Annual President's Award at the S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges in 1996.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Caldwell appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Caldwell appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Caldwell was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Caldwell has practiced law with his father in a general law practice from 1967 to 1970; as a sole practitioner in a general practice including property, domestic relations, criminal, and personal injury work from 1970 until 1980; and as a Family Court Judge since 1980.
·Judge Caldwell listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) State v. Wakefield, 323 S.C. 189, 473 S.E.2d 831 (Ct. App. 1996), cert. denied, Jan. 23, 1997.
(b) State v. Horne, ___ S.C. ___, 478 S.E.2d 289 (Ct. App. 1996). cert. denied, July 24, 1997.
(c) City of Camden v. Brassell, ___ S.C. ___, 486 S.E.2d 492 (Ct. App. 1997).
(d) Vinson v. Hartley, ___ S.C. ___, 477 S.E.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1996).
(e) Schenk v. National Healthcare, Inc., 322 S.C. 316, 471 S.E.2d 736 (Ct. App. 1996), cert. denied, Dec. 9, 1996.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Caldwell's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Caldwell is married to Mary Gwynette McCurley Caldwell and has two children: Wendy Caldwell, age 29, a PhD candidate at the University of Georgia, and Ben F. Caldwell, age 26, a Teacher and graduate student.
Judge Caldwell reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Florence County Bar Association
(c) National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges
(d) S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges -- President 1988
(e) American Judicature Society
Judge Caldwell provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) St. Luke Lutheran Church
(b) Duck's Unlimited
(c) Fitness Forum
(d) Florence Little Theater
·Judge Caldwell stated, "I have been a Family Court Judge for 17 years. During that time I have worked hard at my job and to improve the Family Court System. I was Chairman of the Family Court Judges Advisory Committee which serves as a sounding board for the Supreme Court and Court Administration on Family Court Administrative problems. The present Family Court Rules were prepared in that committee.
I am Vice-chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission and have served on that Commission for many years."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Sutherland meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Sutherland was born on August 17, 1954. She is 43 years old and a resident of Greenville County. Judge Sutherland provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Sutherland.
Judge Sutherland demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Sutherland testified that she 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 Sutherland testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Sutherland testified that she had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Sutherland to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Sutherland provided that during the previous five years she has consistently maintained 12 hours in J.C.L.E. seminars.
Judge Sutherland reported that she has lectured in the following legal and judicial issues over the last five years:
(a) While in private practice she taught courses in criminal law, evidence, prisons, and criminal procedure at Greenville Technical College.
(b) In 1994 and 1996 she participated in the Family Court session of the S.C. Solicitor's Conference addressing current juvenile laws.
(c) In June 1995, she addressed the Domestic Relations section of the S.C. Bar Association at its annual meeting.
(d) On November 15, 1996, she participated on a panel addressing the implementation of the new Children's Code Reform Act of 1996 that was co-sponsored by the S.C. Legal Services Association, The Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, The Children's Committee of the S.C. Bar and the Children's Law Project.
(e) On January 3, 1997, she spoke at U.S.C. School of Law and to 14 other sites in the State via satellite, giving an overview of significant developments of 1996 in the family law in 1996.
(f) In February 1997, she served as the presiding judge for a mock trial for high school students sponsored bu the Greenville County Bar Association.
(g) In April, 1997, she participated in a panel discussion of family court judges sponsored by the S.C. Women Lawyers Association addressing the need for increased use of non-lawyer guardians in custody actions.
Judge Sutherland reported that she has written "Family Court Pact Program", published in the July/August 1995 issue of South Carolina Lawyer magazine.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Sutherland did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Sutherland did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Sutherland has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Sutherland was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Sutherland reported her last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Judge Sutherland appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Sutherland appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Sutherland was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.
Since her graduation from law school, Judge Sutherland has practiced law as an Assistant Solicitor for the 13th Judicial Circuit from 1980 to 1983. From 1983 to 1985, she was an associate with Ashmore, Stilwell and Hunter, where her practice included general civil cases, including domestic, real estate, contract, and probate work. She was also appointed as Public Defender Attorney from 1983 to 1984. From 1985 to 1991, Judge Sutherland was a sole practitioner handling domestic relations, wills, probate, personal injury, and business tort cases. From 1991 to 1992, she was a partner in the firm of Ashmore, Sutherland and Rabon. She continued to handle primarily domestic relations, but also handled probate and personal injury actions. She was Assistant Municipal Judge for the City of Mauldin from 1983 to 1992 and Assistant Municipal Judge for the City of Greenville from 1988 to 1992. Since 1992, Judge Sutherland has been a Family Court judge for the Thirteenth Circuit.
·Judge Sutherland listed her five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Nancy Jeane Vernon, Edward Lee, Willie Austin, In re: Four Minor Children. Reviewed by the S.C. Court of Appeals with unpublished opinion No. 97-UP-217.
(b) Stephen and Paula Sizemore v. Bethany Christian Services, Mark Walker, Martha Jane Dubose, Contius Black. Currently being reviewed by the S.C. Court of Appeals.
(c) Sammy G. and Narvell Potts v. Wendy Gilliland, Kimberly Ann Jackson Potts, and James Douglas Potts. Reviewed by the S.C. Court of Appeals with unpublished opinion No. 95-UP-022.
(d) Jennifer Leigh Graham v. Charles A. Graham. Reviewed by the S.C. Court of Appeals with unpublished opinion No. 95-UP-290.
(e) Sarah Martin and Tracey Rickus v. Jane Doe and John Doe, In re: Baby Girl Martin.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
Mr. Wilkins Norwood, a family member of a party in a case before Judge Sutherland, filed an affidavit in opposition to the re-election of Judge Sutherland stating that she did not have the temperament or judicial demeanor to serve as a family court judge. Ms. Maggie Fields Bailey, a lawyer and the Guardian ad Litem in this case, filed an affidavit in support of the re-election of Judge Sutherland stating that Judge Sutherland's temperament and demeanor were always appropriate and fair.
The Commission heard full testimony from Mr. Norwood and Ms. Bailey and allowed Judge Sutherland to respond.
The Commission believes that Judge Sutherland is qualified for continued service but that she should make efforts to improve the perception of her judicial temperament.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Sutherland is married to Joseph Jerrold Watson and has two children: Robert Asher Watson, 11 years; Mary Elizabeth Watson, 8 years.
Judge Sutherland reported that she was a member of the South Carolina Bar Association.
Judge Sutherland provided that she was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Forum - A professional group open to men and women to provide an outlet for social interactions among professionals from all fields of interest.
(b) Delta Delta Delta Alumni Association
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Johnson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Johnson was born on June 18, 1961. He is 36 years old and a resident of Pickens. Judge Johnson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Johnson.
Judge Johnson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Johnson testified that he had made approximately $15.00 to $20.00 in campaign expenditures for postage.
Judge Johnson 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 Johnson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Johnson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Johnson has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Johnson provided that during the previous five years he had taken the following CLE or JCLE classes:
(a) Attorney's Fees, 12/11/92, sponsored by S.C. Bar, 6 hours
(b) Criminal Practice, 8/18/92, sponsored by S.C. Bar, 7.17 hours
(c) Legal Ethics, 9/4/92, sponsored by S.C. Bar, 6 hours
(d) Is Your Law Office Safe, 12/31/93, sponsored by S.C. Bar, 6.25 hours
(e) Auto Torts XVII, 12/2-3/94, sponsored by S.C.T.L.A, 12 hours
(f) Art & Law of Depositions, 11/4/94, sponsored by S.C. Bar, 6 hours
(g) Auto Torts XVIII, 12/1-2/95, sponsored by S.C.T.L.A., 10.5 hours
(h) Family Court Judges Conf., 6/26/96, sponsored by F.C.J.A., 7.5 hours
(I) Orientation School for New Judges, 6/17/96, sponsored by F.C.J.A., 29.58 hours
(j) 1996 Annual Conv., 8/8/96, sponsored by S.C.J.T.L.A., 12 hours
(k) Judicial Conf., 8/22/96, sponsored by S.C.C.A., 8.25 hours
(l) Family Court Judges Conf., 5/8/97, sponsored by F.C.J.A., 7.5 hours
(m) Judicial Conf., 8/21/97, sponsored by S.C.C.A., 8.25 hours
Judge Johnson reported that he served on the Board of Trustees (Vice Chairman) of North Greenville College. He has continued to be involved with the College and has been renominated for another five-year term. He said he has met with the Pickens-Twelve Mile Baptist Association's Ministers to discuss awareness of the juvenile crime in Pickens County in order to get involvement by them in juvenile crime prevention. He has spoken at several area churches on the same issue. He has been meeting with leaders in the community over the past several months in the hope of establishing a youth mentor program in Pickens County.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Johnson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Johnson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Johnson reported that he did not have a Martindale-Hubbell rating.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Johnson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Johnson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Johnson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.
After graduating from law school until present, Judge Johnson joined the firm Acker, Welmaker & Johnson (formerly Acker, Acker, Floyd & Welmaker). In April 1996, he was sworn in as Family Court Judge for the Thirteenth Circuit, Seat 4 and has served continuously since.
·Judge Johnson listed his most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Brandy Nechole Hayes v. Joey McCall, Docket No. 96- DR-39-118.
(b) State v. Juvenile, Docket No. 96-JU-181.
(c) S.C. Dept. of Social Services v. John Doe, Docket No. 95- DR-39-1265.
(d) Debbie Lea Allen Bell v. Lansford Charles Bell, Docket No. 95-DR-39-1265.
(e) Tommy Jack Fortner v. Cathy Charlene W. Fortner, Docket No. 95-DR-39-1488.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Johnson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Johnson is married to Melissa C. Johnson and has three children: Ashton Hannah Johnson (7), Emily Nicole Johnson (5), Clayton Tyler Johnson (2).
Judge Johnson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Pickens County Bar Association
Judge Johnson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Pickens County Chapter of the American Red Cross
(b) East Pickens Baptist Church (Sunday School Teacher)
(c) Griffin Baptist Church
(d) North Greenville College Board of Trustees (Vice- Chairman)
·Judge Johnson stated, "I am seeking re-election to this position that I have held since my swearing in on April 26, 1996. Since taking this office, I have strived to treat each litigant fairly and to always do what is in the best interests of any minor children involved in the matter. Prior to my election, I had approximately ten (10) years experience in family court matters and it was not unusual for me to be in family court every day of the week when it is in session. Also, I graduated summa cum laude from Wofford College and was in the top 15% of my law school class. I feel that I have the ability to be impartial and treat all litigants fairly. Moreover as a father of three (3) children, I understand the love of a parent for a child and the need to protect these precious gifts from God. If re-elected to this position, I will continue to strive to do what is best for the children."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Brown meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Mr. Brown was born on September 17, 1946. He is 51 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Brown provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Brown testified that he had no campaign expenditures, except for postage to send his documents to the Commission.
Mr. Brown 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. Brown testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Brown provided that during the previous five years he has exceeded all of the required continuing legal education programs with an emphasis in family law.
Mr. Brown reported that approximately fifteen years ago he taught business law and family law for the paralegal program at Greenville Technical College. He has lectured on terminating parental rights to a DSS group and has lectured to bar members for credit under the Continuing Legal Education requirements.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Brown did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Brown did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Brown has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
Mr. Brown reports that when he shared an office with Daniel N. Ballard there may have been a tax lien filed by the federal government relating to contributions made for employees. Mr. Brown made all of his contributions, but Mr. Ballard failed to make his contributions. Because of the filed partnership tax return, Mr. Brown was obligated to pay for the employees. A lien was filed to acquire the contribution money which was immediately satisfied. Mr. Brown reports he has a judgment against Mr. Ballard for his failure to contribute.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Brown reported that he served in the United States Marine Corps Reserves, E-5 and has an Honorable Discharge.
Mr. Brown reported that he has never applied or pursued any rating in Martindale-Hubbell because his practice and domestic (family law) practice is almost exclusively local and he has built his practice by word-of-mouth reputation.
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Brown appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Brown appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Brown was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Brown worked with legal services in 1976. In 1979, he worked in private practice. He has worked in a general law practice with an emphasis on family law. Mr. Brown reports he has also served on the Federal Public Defender list.
Mr. Brown reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: 05%
(b) state: 95%
Mr. Brown reported the percentage of his practice during the last five years as follows:
(a) civil: 05%
(b) criminal: 05%
(c) domestic: 90%
Mr. Brown reported the percentage of practice in trial courts during the last five years as follows:
(a) jury: 02%
(b) non-jury: 98%
He most often served as chief counsel.
·Mr. Brown listed his most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company; 414 SE2d 177, 307 SC 230; This case was significant because prior thereto most lawyers held the opinion that a person who was a named beneficiary in a life insurance contract was entitled to the proceeds and there was very little that could be done about that status. That was considered hornbook contract law. This lady was going through a divorce and had a Temporary Order arising out of a hearing handled by another attorney. The Order was issued which, although not carefully drafted, [one I had it amended to conform to the language used at the temporary hearing] supported a theory which I asserted in this [and another] case that a person who should have received the benefits by way of Family Court Agreement, Contract or Order is entitled to take the proceeds over the person who was actually named the beneficiary in the policy. One case was settled. This case went to the Supreme Court and the idea that I had resulted in the precedent which now allows a person named in a Family Court Order to receive the proceeds regardless of actions of the decedent in naming someone else as the beneficiary on the policy. This lady had been through several lawyers and was told there was not anything she could do.
(b) Ledford v. South Carolina Department of Highway and Public Transportation; 92-CP-23-486; This case is important, in that it protected certain rights of an individual who had a well held religious belief and thus protected all individuals who make up the citizenry of our State who hold well held religious beliefs to assert the same even against the power of the State. The case reaffirmed that person has a right to stand up to the authority of the State and assert their beliefs and that our United States Constitution as well as the State Constitution would protect them and allow such people to prevail since right was on their side. Mr. Ledford believed he should not be required to submit his social security number to the Highway Department prior to being granted a driver's license. It was part of his religious beliefs to not be identified by a number. He had been turned down by a substantial number of attorneys. In that case, I prepared a brief, along with being prepared to present a great deal of evidence including, but not limited to, evidence from a excellent expert as to the biblical basis for his belief. As a result of this action, being prepared in this manner, (I will make available to whomever would like to see it, the entire trial notebook) the Highway Department basically ended up giving up. Enclosed herewith are my brief and the resultant Order which I drafted.
(c) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe; 292 SC 211, 355 SE2d 543; This case is important because it led to a statutory change that was desperately needed to protect children age three (3) or under. The law in South Carolina was such that testimony of a three (3) year old could not be solicited because they inherently could not be qualified. Hearsay evidence, obviously is inadmissible. Therefore, if a person abused a child three (3) years or younger, unless there existed an eyewitness or perhaps scientific evidence sufficient to prove that person committed the crime, they could not be convicted of child abuse. As a result, I thought through and came up with a proposed exception to the hearsay rule, which I presented to Judge Johnson and which he was courageous enough to accept. This case led to a Supreme Court ruling which did not allow the exception. However, as a directly result of that, the legislature set about rewriting the law and wrote a statutory exception to the hearsay rule allowing an abused child's statement, given under certain conditions, and to certain people could be used in a trial against the abuser. This exception is found in the Code of Laws of the State of South Carolina Section 19-1-180.
(d) George Thomas v. Steven Ritchie Holam-Hansen In this case, I asserted and filed a motion and brief with the Supreme Court that under the Constitution a child of indigent parents is entitled to have a full and complete review of the records just as is the child of parents who can afford to buy a transcript. At the oral argument, the attorney for the opposing side consented to buying a transcript, which technically made my case moot. There was a companion case brought by legal services which basically signed on to my idea and brief. My legal theory prevailed, but the decision was rendered under the case brought by legal services. This is important because it provided certain protection for children of indigent people. I am seeking from the Court a copy of my brief which I will file upon receipt. This case was heard in the Supreme Court during the year 1979 and I am seeking related records. I will attempt to find the name of the companion case and determine whether or not it was a published opinion and submit the same to you should you so desire.
(e) White v. White; 283 SC 348, 323 SE2d 521 This case is important because it involved the lower Court finding the husband entitled to annulment yet granting the wife attorney fees and a property division. The wife thought she had been divorced, but there was not divorce order filed. The lower Court granted an equitable apportionment of property to the wife and attorney fees. Traditional law stated that an annulment made a marriage void ab initio. It was as if the parties were never married. Therefore, it would be as if the parties were at arms length for the purpose of a property division. The family court being a Court of equity was allowed to do equity and Ms. White was allowed to have her property division. This was affirmed on appeal.
(f) DSS v. Father and the Mother; 366 SE2d 30, 294 SC 518 (Ct. of App. 1988); This case was determined the skin to be an organ which was damaged by bruising and that such an act may be abuse (20-7-490). I tried the lower Court case; due to scheduling demands, I did not handle the appeal.
·Mr. Brown listed the domestic appeals which he has personally handled as follows:
(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company; 414 SE2d 177, 307 SC 230. [Related to Family Court]
(b) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe; 292 SC 211, 355 SE2d 543.
(c) White v. White; 293 SC 348, 323 SE2d 521.
(d) Fridy v. Fridy; pending on appeal, lower Court case number 93-DR-23-5214; this case has been transferred to the Court of Appeals.
(e) Frye v. Frye, lower Court case number 92-DR-23- 4613. Court of Appeals Opinion Number 2217, filed August 15, 1994.
(f) Department of Social Services v. Whitworth. Lower Court case number 89-DR-23-227; unpublished Opinion Number 93-UP-130, filed April 28, 1993.
NOTE:
I have filed six (6) because Williamson might not be considered Family Court. However, I have handled many more appeals.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Brown's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Brown is married Sharon Johnson Brown and has two children: William Wilson Brown (age 28, unemployed), Anna Rebecca Brown (age 23, college student and photographer).
Mr. Brown reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
Mr. Brown provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Mason
(b) Shriner
(c) Poinsett Club
(d) Cliff's at Glassy Golf Club
(e) Keowee Sailing Club
(f) Shriner's Golf Club
·Mr. Brown stated, "I have over twenty (20) years of practicing law with an emphasis in the area of family law. I have represented individuals against the Department of Social Services. I have represented grandparents, families, children and attempted to do so to the highest standards. I have had no complaints made against me. I believe the people who know me, if asked, and allowed to present their opinion will speak well of me, but that remains for each of those people to do. I believe the attorneys who practice in Family Court support me in my effort to be a Family Court Judge, because they know how important this position is to the citizens of South Carolina.
I seek the position of Family Court Judge because I believe I offer a quality person for the position to serve the citizens of the State of South Carolina. I believe the decision of whom should be a Judge should be based solely upon the qualifications of the individual and those qualifications should be looked at in an honest, objective manner with a fair appraisal made of each candidate. I seek no gain other than the appropriate and normal compensation which relates to being a Judge. I do not consider this any kind of political stepping stone. I have never attempted to use any authority or position I have to influence anyone to take any improper action. I believe being a Judge, in the Family Court particularly, would be the most honorable position one could seek. I believe all people, who are citizens of this State are entitled to a fair and impartial Judge who will rule not based on their political position, not based on their race, not based on their sex, not based on their economic status, but based on the just nature of their causes and claims and will be fair on all sides. I believe parties should leave the Courtroom, not necessarily feeling they have won or lost, but feeling they have been treated with dignity and respect when the State of South Carolina acting through its Judges deals with them and that justice was done.
It may well be that the person needs to be and should be placed in jail for the maximum twelve (12) months allowed. It may well be that the person should not be placed in jail who might have technically violated a Court Order. It might be that a person's child should be permanently taken away or that a person should be allowed to rehabilitate further. These are serious and important questions which must be treated as such. It might be that one side should be allowed to have custody of a child and another limited visitation or substantial visitation. These are matters of grave concern affecting the future of a child and an entire family. Each of these people should leave the Court if they are honest in their appraisal, knowing the Court was fair, even handed, just, and gave them and most importantly their respective attorneys the opportunity to be properly an fairly heard. This would allow them to be properly and fairly represented and conclude the Court ruled only upon the issues and facts presented based upon well reasoned legal and factual conclusions. It is inherent in the Family Court that unhappiness, as well as happiness, arises from what is done. If a person is unreasonable, even well reasoned actions will not be understood as reasonable. A Judge must rise above all personal concerns, as well as all influences except for those which relate to making a proper, legal and factual determination upon the evidence presented in Court and the laws and precedents which the Court should follow.
I do not believe it is the place for the Judge to make himself or herself a legislator; ones job is to apply, not make law. I think within the legal system of our Nation and in the Constitutions of our Nation and State, there is more than adequate room for a Judge to properly interpret and properly apply the law. Further, the law is dynamic by nature. Absent the dynamic nature of law, the Constitution itself would have been interpreted in only one manner, would never be subject to further interpretation or made relevant to contemporary questions. As such, issues even such as slavery, which might at one time not have appeared to be unconstitutional even to the framers of the Constitution could not have been declared unconstitutional; this is but one example of the dynamic nature of the law. I believe in the strict construction of laws passed by the legislature.
A Judge needs to have a keen intellectual, understanding of the law and insight into the various arguments made by counsel. It is essential that a Judge allow the attorneys to do their jobs and the litigants to have their say. To do so, they must bring to the bench a good demeanor, as well as a sense of humor. It is essential that a Judge be able to gather the facts using our adversarial system and rules of evidence as a methodology for the receipt of the evidence, determine the appropriate weight to be given each fact, intelligently apply the law to the facts and be able to make a decisive, clear ruling. I believe I would bring these traits to the bench.
I invite your inquiry, I invite and trust in a fair hearing for all the candidates for this position, myself included. I am sure at the conclusion of this investigation, you as a committee will probably have more knowledge about me than I have in my own conscious memory but I am willing to stand upon my record."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Mann meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Mr. Mann was born on August 30, 1954. He is 43 years old and a resident of Taylors. Mr. Mann provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Mann.
Mr. Mann demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Mann testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
Mr. Mann 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. Mann testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Mr. Mann to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Mann provided that during the previous five years he has attended all of the required continuing legal education programs. He has also completed domestic mediation training.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Mann did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Mann did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Mann has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Mann reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Mr. Mann appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Mr. Mann appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Mann was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Mann opened a law practice in partnership with Philip J. Temple. Since that time three attorneys have joined the firm: Donald L. VanRiper (1987), Larry N. Briggs (1991), S. Allan Hill (1993). Mr. Mann has had a general practice which has included civil litigation, real estate, Family Court, and some criminal defense work. He has practiced regularly in the Family Courts since 1984. He has regularly handled litigation including divorce, equitable division, alimony, custody, and a significant number of adoptions. These adoptions have occurred through adoption agencies, the Department of Social Services, and termination of parental rights. Since 1984, he has represented abused children for at least one-half day per month. From 1988 until present, he has represented Guardians ad Litem, through the Guardian ad Litem Program.
Mr. Mann reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: one time
(b) state: 3 to 5 times per week
(c) other: Industrial Commission 2-3 times per year
Mr. Mann reported the percentage of his practice during the last five years as follows:
(a) civil: 19%
(b) criminal: 01%
(c) domestic: 80%
Mr. Mann reported the percentage of his practice in trial courts during the last five years as follows:
(a) jury: 05%
(b) non-jury: 95%
He most often served as sole counsel.
·Mr. Mann listed his most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Travis Tew v. Cathy Tew, 93-DR-23-4662.
I represented the Plaintiff (father) in a change of custody due to material change of circumstances subsequent to my client's unilaterally determining that he would not return the minor child to the mother because of the mother's behavior.
(b) Melinda Griggs v. Bethany Christian Services, 90-DR-23-2562.
I represented the Defendant (Bethany Christian Services) where the Plaintiff (mother) attempted to withdraw her Consent for Relinquishment of parental rights alleging undue influence and fraud by Bethany Christian Services.
(c) Laura Springman v. Shriner's Hospital and Zurich, WCC File: 912294.
I represented the Plaintiff in a worker's compensation case which was appealed by the defense to the full commission and then to the Circuit Court. The issue was whether an internal failure of the knee is an accident as defined by the Worker's Compensation Commission.
(d) Peter Terwilliger v. Anne Pearl (a/k/a Anne Terwilliger), 93-DR-23-6002.
I represented the Plaintiff. The custodial parent (father) of the two minor children passed away. The mother (Defendant) attempted to obtain custody of the children. The maternal uncle (Plaintiff) obtained custody of the minor children. The primary issue was the standard of proof required by a third party (uncle) to obtain custody of a minor child against the natural mother.
(e) James and Jill Hood v. SCDSS, David Septon, Carol Leigh Barnett Septon and Amber Septon, a minor under the age of fourteen years, 90-DR-23-5305. I represented the Plaintiffs (adoptive parents). The primary issue was the termination of the birth mother's parental rights as a result of her mental illness.
Mr. Mann reported that he had not handled any domestic appeals beyond Rule 59 Motions.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Mann's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Mann is married to Jill Aycock Mann and has two children: Maxwell Elliot Mann (age 9), Hudson James Mann (age 7).
Mr. Mann reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Greenville County Bar Association
Mr. Mann provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Second Presbyterian Church (Deacon, Elder, Trustee)
(b) Gideons International (President, Secretary, Treasurer and Zone Leader)
·Mr. Mann stated, "I have represented the Greenville County Guardian ad Litem Program since it began operating in 1988. I have been an advocate for children during my entire legal career."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Riley meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Ms. Riley was born on November 19, 1946. She is 50 years old and a Resident of Greer. Ms. Riley provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Riley.
Ms. Riley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Riley testified that she had made campaign expenditures for postage.
Ms. Riley testified that she 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.
Ms. Riley testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Ms. Riley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Riley provided that during the previous five years she has exceeded all CLE requirements. Her continuing education courses have been in the areas of domestic relations law (including child abuse), workers' compensation, probate law, litigation techniques, evidence, and ethics.
Ms. Riley reported that she had taught Legal Writing & Research to first-year law students at the University of Mississippi School of Law during the years 1985/86 and 1986/87. She was part of the faculty for a continuing education seminar in September 1994 entitled, "A Practical Guide to Estate Administration in South Carolina," CLE sponsored by the National Business Institute.
Ms. Riley reported that she had published the article:"1986 Mississippi Supreme Court Review: Administrative Law," 56 Mississippi Law Journal 641.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Riley did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Riley has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Riley was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. Riley reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Ms. Riley appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Ms. Riley appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Riley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.
Prior to law school, Ms. Riley was a high school French and English teacher. After graduating from law school, Ms. Riley was an associate at Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann until 1991. From 1991 to present she has been a solo practitioner. Domestic matters occupy the majority of her practice.
Ms. Riley reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years consisted of: 5% federal, 70% state, and 25% SC Workers' Compensation Commission. She estimated her court appearances averaged one per week.
Ms. Riley reported that the percentage of her practice during the past five years involved in civil matters was 10%, criminal matters was 0%, and domestic matters 50-90%.
Ms. Riley reported that the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years that went to a jury was 5-10% and non-jury 90-95%. In cases she has tried, she has served as sole counsel, except for one trial in the Circuit Court in which she was co-counsel.
·Ms. Riley listed the most significant litigated matters she had personally handled:
(a) Christine Franseen et al. v. Doris O'Neil: United States District Court: I represented Defendant Mother of three adult children, who were attempting to prevent her from receiving life insurance proceeds from their father, her husband, of which she was named beneficiary. Jury verdict for Defendant, before the Honorable G. Ross Anderson, Jr.
(b) William Bull v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass, Opinion No. 95-UP-033 (S.C. Ct. App. 1995) I represented the employer in this workers' compensation action. The hearing Commissioner ruled that compensation was due only for a scheduled body part, the great toe; the Full Commission affirmed. Claimant appealed to the Circuit Court, which granted total and permanent disability. The Court of Appeals reversed, as the Claimant had injury only to one body part. The decision followed legal precedent and saved Employer approximately $150,000.00.
(c) David Doby v. Jennifer Doby, Greenville County Family Court, on appeal to South Carolina Supreme Court. I represent Defendant Mother, who was granted custody of her daughter.
(d) Cordelia Fugitt, Conservator v. W.W. Goodlett and Allen M. Goodlett - Greenville County Probate Court
(e) Cordelia Fugitt, Conservator v. John W. Grady III,: Court of Common Pleas, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. In these companion cases, Theresa Horton (Waller) and I represented the Conservator in an effort to recover funds misappropriated by the former conservator attorney-in-fact, and a third party from the Conservator's incapacitated elderly aunt. After a bench trial in Probate Court against the former conservator and attorney-in-fact, we were successful in recovering some of these funds. An action in the Court of Common Pleas against the third party resulted in a jury verdict and judgment of approximately $35,000.00.
·Ms. Riley listed two domestic civil appeals which she had personally handled.
(a) Doby v. Doby, 94-DR-23-6010-pending, South Carolina Court of Appeals
(b) Kelley v. Kelley, 1996 SC 2570, 477 S.E.2d 727 (Ct. App. 1996)
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Riley's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Riley was divorced in 1983. She has been married to James Edgar Clemmer since 1987. She has two children: Jacob Riley Johnson (age 20, student at Furman University) and Scott Stephen Johnson (age 24, Managed Care Consultant, North Mississippi Medical Center)
Ms. Riley reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) American Bar Association
(c) Greenville County Bar
(d) SC Women Lawyers Association
Ms. Riley provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Piedmont Council for Prevention of Child Abuse
(b) Libra Society
(c) St. Giles Presbyterian Church (active elder)
·Ms. Riley stated, "I believe that events which have shaped my life have left me with a unique combination of talents and experience to bring to the Family Court bench. First, my parents are strong Christians who endowed me with a strict sense of honesty, fairness, and responsibility, both personally and professionally. To be truthful, to have an open mind, and to follow through with commitments are standards which they taught me, which I have tried to practice throughout my life, and which I have tried to pass on to my children.
Second the combination of my education and work experience has helped me to develop the ability to think logically and to express those thoughts clearly in writing. I find that my training in the various types of mediation - family, civil, and peer - is becoming a significant tool in helping parties reach solutions to family problems.
Third, after counseling and attempts to reconcile, I was divorced in 1983. I was a single parent of my two sons during law school and until my remarriage in 1987. My sons are now adults: one is a graduate of Auburn University, with a major in Health Care Administration, employed by North Mississippi Medical Center; and the other is a junior at Furman University, majoring in Health and Exercise Science, with plans to become a physician or a physical therapist.
I have experienced both the joys of parenting and the pain of divorce. During the past several years, my ex-husband and I have developed a mutually cordial relationship, and this has been beneficial for my sons. Thus, I know the value of communication and cooperation between divorced parents, and I am sensitive to the feelings of persons who are severing emotional bonds.
My law practice has evolved over the past five years into one of primarily domestic relations law. As both a trained mediator and one who has personal as well as professional experience with divorce, I find that I am able to understand the dynamics between the parties to help them find solutions. Therefore, I believe that with my experience in family law, both as a litigant and as an attorney representing parties, I would bring qualities of empathy and understanding to the bench, along with the ability to rule on legal issues.
My tendency to help others, be responsible, and to follow through with commitments was tested to the utmost during the period from April 25, 1996, through June 14, 1997. A young women, the stepdaughter of a client, was being physically abused, and the Court appointed me as Temporary Guardian, with the consent of the father and stepmother, until the biological father could make a home for her. A number of problems associated with the young woman's past life developed, making the arrangement intolerable, and after approximately fourteen months, the relationship was terminated. We did not know at the outset that this endeavor to help another human being in need could not possibly succeed; we only saw a young woman, potentially homeless, in a situation in which we believed we should perform our Christian duty.
This experience gave me a new perspective on the impressionability, delicacy, and vulnerability of the psyche of a young child. I am more aware than ever of the importance of the development of parenting skills, and I have an even greater joy in and appreciation of seeing my own children succeed."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Fender meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.
Judge Fender was born on September 17, 1947. She is 50 years old and a resident of Beaufort County. Judge Fender provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Fender.
Judge Fender demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Fender testified that she 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 Fender testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Fender testified that she had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Fender to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Fender provided that during the previous five years she had attended J.C.L.E. courses offered for Family Court in addition to other courses offered during bar conventions or at S.C. Trial Lawyers Conventions. Before becoming a judge, she attended at least 15 hours of various courses offered each year.
Judge Fender reported that she had lectured at Technical College of the Low Country (as substitute teacher) in domestic law.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Fender did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Fender did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Fender has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Fender was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Fender reported that her last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Judge Fender appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Fender appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Fender was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
Since her graduation from law school, Judge Fender has practiced law with the Law Office of Harvey L. Golden from February to July 1985; with Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough from August 1985 to August 1986; with Dowling, Sanders, Dukes, Williams, Infinger, Patterson & Meeks, a general practice concentrating in family law from August 1986 to May 1992; with the Dowling Law Firm, a general practice concentrating in family law from May 1992 to July 1, 1994, when she was elected to the Family Court.
·Judge Fender listed her five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Danzell v. Danzell, 94-DR-07-208 (Beaufort County).
(b) Ferguson v. Ferguson, 94-DR-42-3168 (Spartanburg County).
(c) Gilley v. Gilley, 94-DR-07-1090 (Beaufort County),(Op. 24631, Filed June 9, 1997, Davis Adv. Sh. No.17).
(d) Boffelli v. Moran, 95-DR-07-764 (Beaufort County).
(e) Shaner v. Brown, 95-DR-03-04 (Allendale County).
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Fender's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Fender is divorced with two children: Sherwood N. Fender, Jr., age 30, a student at Randolph Community College and Addison D. Fender, age 22, a student at Clemson University.
Judge Fender reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) American Bar Association
(c) Beaufort County Bar
(d) Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity, Justice Pinckney Chapter, 1983-1984; Vice-Justice, Palmetto Alumnae Chapter, 1985-1986
Judge Fender provided that she was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Program; Richland and Beaufort Counties; Member, 1984-1994
(b) Low Country Mediation Network; Member, 1990- 1994
(c) St. Helena'a Episcopal Church; Board of Episcopal Church Women, 1897-1994; Advisor to Episcopal Young Churchmen, 1987-1994; Sunday School Teacher, 1986-1994
(d) Child Abuse Prevention Association; Board Member, 1994
(e) Coastal Speech and Hearing Clinic; Board Member, 1988-1993; Chairman, 1990-1992
(f) Coastal Empire Mental Health Clinic; Board Member, 1989-1994
(g) Beaufort High School; School Improvement Council, 1991-1993
(h) Beaufort County Public School Education Foundation; Board Member, 1988-1994
(I) American Cancer Society, Beaufort Chapter; Board Member, 1990-1994
(j) Greater Beaufort County Boys and Girls Club; Board Member, 1992-1994.
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Judge Kinon was born on October 4, 1958. She is 39 years old and a resident of Conway. Judge Kinon provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Kinon.
Judge Kinon demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Kinon reported that she had not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Kinon testified that she 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 Kinon testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Kinon to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Kinon has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Kinon reported that she has met at least twice the minimum requirements for Continuing Legal Education each year for the past five years, with primary concentration on issues involving Family Court. She has also been a frequent speaker at seminars.
Judge Kinon reported that she has lectured or taught the following law-related courses or CLE courses:
(a) CLE Speaker - S.C. Bar DOMESTIC PRACTICE: "Hot Tips From the Experts", May 1994.
(b) JCLE Speaker - S.C Bar "Cameras in the Courtroom", June 1993.
(c) CLE Speaker - S.C. Bar DOMESTIC PRACTICE: "Hot Tips From the Experts", May 1993.
(d) CLE Speaker - Horry County Bar "Effective Motions Practice in Family Court" - Marcg 1992.
(e) CLE Speaker - S.C. Bar DOMESTIC PRACTICE: "Hot Tips From the Experts" Rides Again!, May 1992.
(f) CLE Coordinator - Horry County Bar, January 1992.
(g) CLE Speaker - "The New Family Court Rules", January 1989.
(h) JCLE Speaker - "Hearsay in Child Abuse Cases", 1987.
(I) Speaker - Horry County Legal Secretaries Association, Ethics in the Judicial System, October 9, 1995.
(j) Speaker - The Function of the Family Court in the Judicial System
(k) Speaker - Citizens Against Spousal Abuse (CASA) training seminar, Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, November 1995.
(l) Speaker - 1997 S.C. Solicitor's Association Conference, Charging Decisions, Guilty Pleas, and Opening Statements.
(m) Speaker, Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative purposes of the Circuit and Family Courts - Conflicts between Family Court, Circuit and other Courts or Administrative Bodies.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Kinon did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Kinon did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kinon has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Kinon was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Kinon reported that she was not individually rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Kinon appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Kinon appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Kinon was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
After graduating from Law School, Judge Kinon worked with Rosen, Rosen & Scoville from August 1985 through July 1986. She worked in general practice with an emphasis upon real estate title work and Family Court. From 1986-87, she practiced privately in Family Court. From 1987-88, she worked at Hearn & Corbett, with 95% of her practice in Family Court. She also did private contract work with the Georgetown Public Defender's office from 1985-87. From 1988-89 Judge Kinon continued Family Court work with Van Osdell, Lester, Stewart, Hearn, McCutchen, Brittain & Martin, which merged with Hearn & Corbett. From 1989-95, She practiced with Hearn, Brittain & Martin, with 95 % of her practice concentrated in Family Court. In July 1995, she was elected to the Family Court Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 to fill Judge Hearn's unexpired term.
·Judge Kinon listed her five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Patricia B. Lewis v. W. Morgan Lewis, 96-DR- 26-1052; Long Term marriage of twenty-eight years. The issues at trial were alimony and equitable apportionment. The unique issue in this case was whether monies from both parties' families were debts which must be repaid or treated as gifts, the division of substantial marital assets, and what consideration significant amounts of money given by the husband to his paramour should be given in the division of assets.
(b) In the Interest of Thomas Bruce Dawson A Minor under the age of Eighteen Years. (Order 95-JU-22-273 and Opinion No. 2666). A juvenile was picked up by Law enforcement at the mother's request and taken to school. Juvenile had a pack of cigarettes which were in plain view. Police removed the cigarettes from the juvenile prior to taking the juvenile to school as cigarettes were contraband. Inside the cellophane of the cigarette pack was a marijuana cigarette. Juvenile was charged with simple possession of marijuana. Marijuana cigarette admitted over juvenile's objection at trial. Admission of marijuana into evidence affirmed by Court of Appeals.
(c) Robert Campbell Seay v. Nancy Jo Seay, 96-DR- 26-1753; Thirty-six year marriage where the husband met his out-of-state paramour on the Internet and moved in with her one day after leaving the marital residence. Wife had numerous non-marital assets acquired by gift and inheritance during the course of the marriage. The issues at trial were the transmutation of those assets and the valuation of certain assets (show horses and equipment used in conjunction therewith).
(d) Todd M. Tarker v. Stephanie Lynn Tarker, 96- DR-26-533; Child custody case involving three young children where the father was a Drill Sergeant in the Marine Corp at Parris Island, South Carolina. Mother regularly exposed the children to an immoral environment both before and after the separation of parties, including, when the father was stationed overseas with the military. Custody granted to the father at trial.
(e) Pamela S. Tilghman v. Christopher Tilghman, 95- DR-26-2983; This is a marriage of ten years where the husband at the time of the trial was living with his paramour. The husband had substantial non-marital assets. The issue at trial was whether the wife was entitled to alimony and if entitled the amount to be awarded. The wife had health problems, required additional training to re-enter the job market and had no non-marital property. The husband had income producing marital property, enjoyed good health, and had no need for additional education or training.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Kinon's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Kinon is married to Samuel Christopher Kinon and has two children: Michael Samuel Kinon (age 5) and Christopher Cameron Kinon (age 5).
Judge Kinon reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) Board of Advisors for the South Carolina Council for Mediation and Alternate Dispute Resolution, 1994-present
(b) The Joint Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution for The Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1993-present
(c) The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline for The Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1992-present
(c) American Bar Association, Family Law Section, 1987-present
(d) American Bar Association, 1985-present
(e) American Trial Lawyer's Association, 1987- present
(f) South Carolina Women Lawyers Association, 1995-present (Sustaining Member)
(g) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association - Family Law Section, 1987-present
(h) South Carolina Bar Family Law Section Council, 1991-present
(I) South Carolina Bar - Board of Governors, 1990- 1993
(j) South Carolina Bar Nominating Committee, 1989- 1990
(k) South Carolina Bar - House of Delegates, 1988- 1990
(l) South Carolina Bar Family Law Section, 1987- present
(m) Coastal Women's Law Society, 1995-present
(n) Horry County Bar - Family Court Executive Committee, 1990-present
(o) Horry County Bar - Family Court Advisory Committee, 1987-present (President, 1993-present)
(p) South Carolina Bar, 1985-present
(q) Horry County Bar, 1985-present
Judge Kinon reported that she has been a certified Family Court Mediator since 1994.
Judge Kinon reported that she has won the following awards:
(a) University of South Carolina School of Law "Compleat Lawyer" Award, Silver Award, 1994
(b) South Carolina Bar Pro Bono Service Award, 1992
(c) South Carolina Business and Professional Women - Young Careerist, District III, 1987
(d) South Carolina Business and Professional Women - Young Careerist, Georgetown, 1987
(e) American Jurisprudence Award - Evidence, 1985.
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Flynn meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Judge Flynn was born on February 14, 1932. He is 65 years old and a resident of Union County. Judge Flynn provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1958.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Flynn.
Judge Flynn demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
The Commission is concerned with reports it received concerning Judge Flynn's impartiality. The Commission would advise Judge Flynn that he should make every effort to improve the perception of his impartiality so that attorneys, parties, witnesses, agency representatives and others have faith that they will receive a fair hearing.
Judge Flynn 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 Flynn testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Flynn testified that he had campaign expenditures relating to postage on letters to all members of the legislature, excluding members of the Screening Commission. He also had campaign expenditures of $40 to $50 for certified copies of orders to file with his personal data questionnaire. The expenditures may slightly exceed $100.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Flynn to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Flynn provided that he has attended all required CLE Programs.
Judge Flynn reported that he taught part-time for about ten years in Accounting and Economics at USC-Union; he lectured at USC-Union spring semester of 1976. Also, he participated in a program at the Solicitor's Convention in 1996 along with Judge Amy Sutherland.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Flynn did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Flynn did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Flynn has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Flynn was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Flynn reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV".
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Flynn appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Flynn appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Flynn was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1958.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Flynn has practiced law as a solo practitioner August 1958 until August 1994 in Union County. He has served as City of Union Recorder 1960-1962; Public Defender 1969-1978; Assistant Solicitor 1978-1993; County Attorney until August 1994; and Judge since August 1, 1994.
·Judge Flynn listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Stewart v. Stewart (Watts); Union County Judgment Roll:AA-397.
I represented the Plaintiff who had previously married a North Carolina woman about 50 years prior to this Court proceeding. He was still married to her when he participated in a marriage ceremony with the Defendant, with whom he fathered and reared four (4) children, all of whom were emancipated before this action was commenced. Plaintiff divorced the North Carolina woman, and continued living with this Defendant, although only sporadically at times until about 1990 when she married a man named Watts. Plaintiff and Defendant owned one house together, and a second house, used by Plaintiff as his home, was titled only in Defendant, having been conveyed to her by Plaintiff some years previously. Plaintiff and Defendant maintained a joint bank account and filed joint tax returns through 1989. Defendant wrote Plaintiff and told him to vacate the home because she intended to sell it.
This action to determine the relationship of Plaintiff and Defendant as one of husband and wife under Common Law, for divorce on the ground of Separation for over one (1) year, and an equitable division of property, was instituted, and a Lis Pendens was filed concerning both properties. Needless to say, the matter was contested. The Court ruled that a Common law marriage had been established when the North Carolina woman was divorced, that the property was transmuted into marital property, and that each of the parties was entitled to 50% of the net value of both houses as an equitable division of the marital property.
The significance here is that without taking action the Plaintiff could have lost all of his possessions and his home.
(b) State v. Unnamed Juvenile; Union County.
The juvenile in this proceeding was alleged to have committed a trespass after notice. The juvenile involved was attempting to get to game preserve land that did not have a decent access to the public road. There were homes in the sparsely settled area that were adjacent to the north of the game preserve lands. The juvenile, with another, went from the public road on a bicycle and passed a "no trespassing" sign and a locked gate onto privately owned lands crossing them to the rear of the dwelling house and approaching the game preserve property when he was accosted by the landowner and resident.
A prosecution was necessary due to the insistence of the homeowner. The juvenile appeared and was represented by appointed counsel, the public defender. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Court ruled that the case had been proved against the juvenile beyond a reasonable doubt, but, the Court determined that the best interest of the juvenile and society required that the child be warned that what he had done was a violation of the law, and that the case would be dismissed with no attendant punishment.
The significance here was that all juveniles who violated the law are not necessarily punished for their indiscretions. This case also demonstrates the importance of the Family Court as a device for warning juveniles, and a deterrent to juveniles from committing more serious and more personally harmful acts in the future.
(c) Union County DSS v. Gray, et al.: Union County Judgment Roll:V-437.
This was a child abuse/neglect matter. Four (4) children, all under ten (10) years of age were found together but without any responsible person to care for them. They were taken into Emergency Protective Custody by a law enforcement officer and turned over to a child protective service worker with Union County DSS, who put the children in foster care and contacted me as Assistant Solicitor, to bring the matter to the attention of Family Court. The action, as do all such, required a Summons, Complaint, Notice of Hearings (Emergency and Removal) as to time and dates, Petition for Appointment of Guardian-ad-Litem and Attorney for the children, Order appointing someone as Guardian-ad-Litem, and someone else as Attorney for the children, and notice to parent of right to counsel.
The Emergency Hearing then must be held within ten (10) days of the taking of the children, and it was. The purpose of the Emergency Hearing is for the Court to determine whether the law enforcement officer acted appropriately in taking the children into emergency protective custody, and to determine whether the children should be continued in foster care under DSS supervision or returned to the parent pending the Removal Hearing. In this case, the mother appeared without shoes or counsel, and otherwise appeared unconcerned.
The Court ruled that the law enforcement officer acted appropriately, appointed counsel for the mother, and continued custody with DSS until the Removal Hearing, which had already been scheduled for a time within thirty (30) days of the Emergency Hearing.
The primary goal of the Family Court in situations such as this is to determine what the best interests of the children requires and try to see that it is carried out. Such was the significance here.
(d) Union County DSS v. Williams, et al.: Union County Judgment Roll:R-5.
This also was a child abuse/neglect matter. The child was under one (1) year of age, and the stepfather of the child broke the leg of the child by twisting it. The matter was reported to DSS by the doctor who treated the child. After the stepfather was confined in prison for what he had done to the child, the mother and child were reunited with assistance from the Court and DSS. This matter, as do all child abuse/neglect matters, involved several persons and more than one Court appearance by several attorneys including:
Judges: Wilburn and Mendenhall
Attorneys:J.S. Flynn - DSS
Nora Lewis - Stepfather
Barbara Machell- Natural Mother
Richard Steele - Abused Child
Thomas H. White- Guardian-ad- Litem for abused child
The significance here shows that the Court sought the child's best interest, which this case reunited the child with the mother.
(e) Owings v. Roper; Union County Judgment Roll:W-375.
I became involved in this matter several years after the parties had been divorced. The action was instituted by a Petition for Contempt and a Rule to Show Cause against the mother of a child, age about six (6) years. The Petition alleged the mother was refusing weekday visitation without justification, and that she should be required to pay costs and counsel fees, and be sanctioned by the Court.
I represented the mother of the child, and procured an Affidavit about the child from the child's teacher; and filed on behalf of the mother an Answer, Return to Rule, and Counterclaim.
Prior to the time for the hearing, the parties, through their respective counsel, negotiated a settlement of their differences with increased child support benefits for the mother, who continued to have custody and with spelled-out visitation times, and with each to pay their respective counsel. At the designated time for hearing, the agreement was presented to the Court with all present. The Court determined the agreement was fair, just and equitable under the circumstances, and adopted it as the Order of the Court.
The significance of this is that sometimes people do not realize they would be better off leaving well enough alone.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Flynn is qualified for continued judicial service. However, the Commission is concerned regarding reports it received concerning Judge Flynn's judicial temperament. The Commission would advise Judge Flynn that he should make every effort to improve the perception of his judicial temperament.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Flynn is married to Nora Grant Alston Flynn and they have two children: Alston Flynn Lippert, age 33, a homemaker and mother of a child under (1) one year and Anne Macon Flynn, age 30, a lawyer at the South Carolina Budget and Control Board.
Judge Flynn reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Union County Bar Association-Past President 1975
Judge Flynn reported that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Union Rotary Club, Past Director, and Paul Harris Fellow
(b) Masons
(c) Hejaz Shrine
(d) Elks, Past Esquire
(e) Grace United Methodist Church, District-Parish Committee and Sunday School Teacher
(f) Union Country Club
(g) American Legion
(h) Union County Chamber of Commerce-Past President 1984-1985.
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Lewis meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Ms. Lewis was born on August 5, 1935. She is 62 years old and a resident of Union County. Ms. Lewis provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Lewis.
Ms. Lewis demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Lewis reported that she was ordered to pay $250 by the Circuit Court in April 1992, for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Ms. Lewis had previously disclosed this in 1994, during her screening for Administrative Law Judge. The suit was filed by Ms. Lewis and another attorney, involving Lottery courier services. Both Ms. Lewis and the other attorney were fined equally.
Ms. Lewis reported that she is a distributor for Starlight Products, since 1997, and a partner in a farming operation with her husband since 1977.
Ms. Lewis testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule Regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Lewis testified that she 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.
Ms. Lewis testified that she had campaign expenditures of approximately $100 to $150.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Ms. Lewis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her Performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Lewis provided that during the previous five years she has attended the following continuing legal education courses:
(a) Magistrate Orientation School in July 1997
(b) SC Women Advocate Seminar in May 1996
(c) The Sword and the Shield: Attacking and Supporting the Credibility of Witnesses in October 1996
(d) Expert Witness in Child Abuse in May 1996
(e) Ethics in October 1995
(f) Family Mediation Skills Training in April 1994
(g) Professional Responsibility/ALPS in August 1994
(h) Guideline Sentencing in April 1993
(I) ABC Seminar in July 1993
(j) Serving the Best Interests of Children in November 1993
(k) BabyNet Training in November 1993
Ms. Lewis reported that she taught Business Law at the University of South Carolina, Union Campus in 1983.
Ms. Lewis reported that she wrote the 4th chapter (Real Estate Transfers) in Layman's Guide to Virginia Law in 1976 and that she was also the editor of the publication.
Ms. Lewis reported that she has served as an ABC Hearing Officer in 1993 and as a part-time Municipal Judge in Jonesville, South Carolina from June 1996-present.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Lewis did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Lewis did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Lewis has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Lewis was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Ms. Lewis reported that she has no Martindale-Hubbell rating to her knowledge.
Ms. Lewis taught High School and Jr. High School mathematics in South Carolina, Virginia, and Florida from 1958-1972 until she entered law school.
Ms. Lewis served as a Public Defender for Union County from September of 1980 to January of 1988. She was appointed by the Public Defender Board.
(6) Physical health:
Ms. Lewis appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Ms. Lewis appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Lewis was admitted to the South Carolina and the Virginia Bar in 1975.
Since her graduation from law school, Ms. Lewis has served as an associate with Neely, Otter, Belk and Beerman in Anderson South Carolina, 1976-1977; as a sole practitioner in Union, South Carolina from 1977-present; as a part-time Public Defender in Union, South Carolina, 1980-1988.
Ms. Lewis reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) Federal: 0
(b) State: Average of 3 per week
(c) Other: Social Security Disability Hearings 10-12 per year
Ms. Lewis reported the percentage of her practice during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 05%
(b) Criminal: 15%
(c) Domestic: 80%
Ms. Lewis reported the percentage of her cases in trial courts during the past five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 10%
(b) Non-Jury: 90%
She served most often served as sole counsel.
·Ms. Lewis listed her five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Wortman v. City of Spartanburg (310 SC 1)(425 SE2d 18).
This case was significant in that it arose out of the arrest of Wortman for possession of out-of-state lottery tickets. It raised a number of questions related to immunity of the city and the legality of possession of out-of-state lottery tickets. The matter of those lottery tickets was the subject of much controversy at that time.
(b) Plante v. State (315 SC 562)(446 SE2d 437).
This post-conviction relief action resulted from a guilty plea entered by Plant[e] during the time that the case was on appeal to the Supreme Court. Plante contended that the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to take the plea. PCR Judge agreed. State appealed. Supreme Court Reversed.
(c) State v. Curtis L. Harris (unreported).
As Public Defender, I was lead Counsel for the Defendant in this capital murder case. Although Harris was convicted, we were successful in obtaining a life sentence which is, in and of itself, of utmost significance.
(d) State v. James Wilbanks (unreported).
This capital murder case was one of the most publicized and gruesome rape-murder cases ever heard in Union County. Wilbanks was convicted but given a life sentence. As lead counsel for Wilbanks, I think it is significant that his life was spared.
(e) Woodsby v. Kelly (93-DR-44-249).
Child custody case wherein cases were brought simultaneously in Ohio and South Carolina. Abuse was alleged, making the case more complicated, as the children are in Ohio and the alleged abusive father is in South Carolina. I was successful in my contention on behalf of Plaintiffs that exclusive jurisdiction lies in South Carolina.
Ms. Lewis did not report any civil appeals she had personally handled.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Lewis' temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Lewis is married to Harold L. Lewis. She has three children from a previous marriage: William J. Bailes, Jr. (age 38, Utilities Engineering Technician), Thomas E. Bailes (age 36, Automobile Salesman), and Robert O. Bailes (age 30, a disabled part-time Wal-Mart Associate).
Ms. Lewis reported that she was divorced on a year separation in March of 1977, her ex-husband, William Bailes, Sr., being the moving party.
Ms. Lewis reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Virginia Bar Association
(c) Union County Bar Association, President 1991- 1994
Ms. Lewis provided that she was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Civitan Club, Board of Directors
(b) Union County Disabilities and Special Needs Board of Directors
(c) Union Services Board of Directors
(d) Union Services Parent/Relative Support Group, President 1992-present
(e) Mt. Tabor Presbyterian Church, Elder and Clerk of Sessions, 1991-present
·Ms. Lewis stated, "Reared in the home of college graduates who were active in community affairs, I first married a career naval aviator and, in order to assist in his career and meet the requirements of a naval officer's wife, learned protocol and social niceties which have stood me in good stead. Teaching high school math both before the children were born and after they reached school age, taught me patience, the value of consistency and the importance of maintaining a sense of humor. The fact that I successfully completed law school at William and Mary when my children were 8, 14 and 16 years of age (the youngest one being developmentally delayed), was the first female president of the Student Bar Association, passed both the Virginia and South Carolina bar exams the same year that I graduated from law school and have had a successful practice of law as a female lawyer in a small southern town, should indicate my organizational abilities as well as my ability to overcome obstacles, my determination and my ability to get along with people. As the wife (for 20 years) of a farmer, I have numerous duties in connection with the farm operation and have always managed to keep these responsibilities and those of my family from interfering with my law practice. I feel that all of these factors, my good health and energy, as well as my habit of hard work, makes me an outstanding candidate for Family Court Judge."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Sanders meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Master-in-Equity.
Judge Sanders was born on July 24, 1952. He is 45 years old and a resident of Allendale County. Judge Sanders provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Sanders.
Judge Sanders demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Sanders 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 Sanders testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Sanders testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Sanders to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Sanders provided that during the previous five years he has attended numerous CLEs and JCLEs and has met the attendance requirements mandated by the SC Bar.
Judge Sanders reported that he has been a part-time Associate Professor at the University of South Carolina - Salkehatchie Branch, teaching Business Law.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Sanders did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Sanders did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Sanders has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Sanders was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Sanders reported that he is listed in Martindale- Hubbell but he is unsure of his last rating.
Judge Sanders was a candidate for Judge of Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3 in 1997. Judge Sanders was found qualified by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and by the Judicial Qualifications Committee of the South Carolina Bar.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Sanders appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Sanders appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Sanders was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Upon his graduation from law school, Judge Sanders practiced law with the Law Firm of Lawton, Myrick & Detrick in Allendale until 1979. Since August 1979, Judge Sanders has been a sole practitioner at Walter H. Sanders, Jr., P.A.
Judge Sanders has a general law practice and he has also been the Municipal Judge of the Town of Fairfax since 1980, the Municipal Judge of the Town of Varnville since 1984, and the Municipal Judge of the Town of Brunson from 1988-89 and from 1996 to the present. He was also appointed as the interim Municipal Judge of the Town of Allendale in 1992 and has been the Master-in-Equity for Allendale County since 1991.
·Judge Sanders listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation v. Judith Diane Bowers, et al. (Foreclosure Action).
(b) Julius Jackson v. Everliner J. Lawrence, et al. (Partition Action).
(c) Josie Yvone Broomfield Ingram v. Ernestine Walker, et al. (Quiet Title Action).
(d) Small Business Funding Corp. V. Metric Constructors, Inc. (Order for Summary Judgment).
(e) Cecil Chavous, et al. V. John Sanders d/b/a Sanders Logging and Trucking (Breach of Contract).
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Sanders' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Sanders is married to Cynthia Gore Sanders and has two children, Walter Hazel Sanders, III (14 years); and Hardee Gore Sanders (10 years).
Judge Sanders reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Allendale County Bar Association (Treasurer, Vice-President)
Judge Sanders provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
(a) Fairfax Lions Club -- President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Lion of the Year
(b) Allendale County Rural Health Program, Inc. (Board of Directors)
(c) Allendale County Business Association
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Drew meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Master-in-Equity.
Judge Drew was born on February 20, 1934. He is 63 years old and a resident of Anderson County. Judge Drew provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1959.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Drew.
Judge Drew demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Drew testified that he had 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 Drew testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Drew testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Drew to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Drew has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Drew provided that during the previous five years he had complied with all CLE and JCLE requirements.
Judge Drew provided that he had been a speaker at a CLE program concerning the Equity Court within the last five years.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Drew did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Drew did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Drew has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Drew was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Drew reported that as a member of the judiciary since 1981, he is unaware of his last Martindale-Hubbell rating. Judge Drew's recollection is that his rating was "BV".
Judge Drew served in the USAR from June 1956 -July 31, 1964, with six months active duty at Fort Knox, KY in the Armored Corps, and for eight years reserve duty. He received an Honorable Discharge.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Drew appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Drew appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Drew was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1959.
After his graduation from law school, Judge Drew practiced with the firm of Watkins, Vandiver, Freeman & Kirven in Anderson, SC from 1959-64. In 1964, he opened a private practice with an emphasis on Real Estate and Civil Practice. Since 1981, he has served as the Master-in-Equity in Anderson County.
·Judge Drew listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Revis v. Revis, Declaratory judgment for life insurance proceeds. Court of Appeals affirmed; Opinion No. 2647; Advance Sheet March 31, 1991.
(b) Cobb v. Benjamin, Declaratory judgment action, underinsured motorist coverage issue. Court of Appeals affirmed, Opinion No. 2626; Advance Sheet January 27,1997.
(c) Pruitt v. King Vinyl Systems, Inc, Mechanic's lien issue; Supreme Court Affirmed, Memorandum Opinion No. 96-MO-232, Filed 11/6/96.
(d) Ducworth v. Nora Lee Scott and Chevrolet Automobile, Court of Appeals Affirmed; Unpublished Decision No. 95-UP-012.
(e) Westvaco Co. v. S.C. Dept. Of Revenue, City and County of Charleston et al., Issue on the constitutionality of the Local Option Sales Tax legislation; Supreme Court Affirmed, Opinion No. 24341, Filed 11/6/95.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Drew's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Drew is married Nan Haddock Drew and has three children: Ellis B. Drew III, age 38, an attorney, Sam W. Drew, age 36, real estate and Mary Drew Rogers, age 33, a housewife.
Judge Drew reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Anderson County Bar Association
Judge Drew stated that he was appointed to the Commission on Judicial Conduct by the Supreme Court on November 26, 1996.
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Kemmerlin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as Master-in-Equity.
Judge Kemmerlin was born on August 12, 1931. He is 66 years old and a resident of Beaufort County. Judge Kemmerlin provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1953.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Kemmerlin.
Judge Kemmerlin demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Kemmerlin 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 Kemmerlin testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Kemmerlin testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Kemmerlin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Kemmerlin has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Kemmerlin provided that during the previous five years he had complied with CLE requirements.
Judge Kemmerlin reported that he taught Business Law for thirty years at U.S.C. and that he taught at the Law School as well. At U.S.C. School of Law he taught Code Pleadings, Trial Advocacy, Torts I and II, and Articles 3 and 4 of the UCC. He has made presentations on numbers of CLE programs concerning the Uniform Commercial Code and Bankruptcy. In addition, he taught a Bar Review Course concerning Insurance.
Judge Kemmerlin reported that he has written and published the following books and articles:
(a) Review of Insurance Law in the S.C. Law Quarterly between 1961 and 1963.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Kemmerlin did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Kemmerlin did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kemmerlin has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Kemmerlin was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Kemmerlin reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV".
Judge Kemmerlin has served as the Master-in-Equity for Beaufort County since 1987 and also serves as Special Circuit Court Judge.
Judge Kemmerlin provided that he retired from the University of South Carolina with the title "Distinguished Professor Emeritus."
(6) Physical health:
Judge Kemmerlin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Kemmerlin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Kemmerlin was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1953.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Kemmerlin has practiced law with the following firms:
1954 Roberts & Jennings
1955-56 Roberts, Jennings, Thomas & Lumpkin
1957-59 Thomas & Kemmerlin
1960-63 Ellison D. Smith
1963-65 Lumpkin, Kemmerlin & Medlock
1966-68 Lumpkin & Kemmerlin
1968-69 Lumpkin, Kemmerlin & Lafaye
1970-73 Belser & Kemmerlin
1974-75 Belser, Kemmerlin & Ravenel
1976-77 Belser, Kemmerlin, Adams & Ravenel
1978-83 Belser, Kemmerlin, Ravenel & Smith
1984-85 Belser, Baker, Barwick, Toal & Ravenel (Of Counsel)
1985-87 Sherwood N. Fender & Associates (Of Counsel)
·Judge Kemmerlin listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Freeman V. Community Services Associates, Inc., Opin. No. 94-UP-121 in which the Court of Appeals adopted his order as to the Order of that Court.
(b) Janasik v. Fairway Oaks Villas, 307 S.C.347, 415 S.E.2d 384 (1992).
(c) Simmons v. Robinson et al., 303 S.C. 201, 399 S.E.2d 605 (Ct. App. 1990) 305 S.C. 248, 409 S.E.2d 381 (1991).
(d) Conner v. Town of Hilton Head,314 S.C. 251, 442 S.E.2d 608 (1994).
(e) Cheryl O. Newton, 312 S.C. 107, 439 S.E.2d 285 (Ct._App. 1993) ___ S.C. ___, 462 S.E.2d 266 (1995).
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Kemmerlin's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Kemmerlin is single.
Judge Kemmerlin reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) American Bar Association
(c) Beaufort Bar Association
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Stokes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as Master-in-Equity.
Judge Stokes was born on September 21, 1958. He is 39 years old and a resident of Berkeley County. Judge Stokes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Stokes.
Judge Stokes demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Stokes testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Stokes testified that he had campaign expenditures of approximately $14.80
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Stokes to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Stokes provided that during the previous five years he had met or exceeded CLE and JCLE requirements.
Judge Stokes reported that he had taught the following law-related courses:
(a) Aug. 1990 - Present: Adjunct Instructor, Trident Technical College, Division of Continuing Education
Instructor for SLED Constable Training, legal section, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, and Civil Liability
Instructor for Business Law Section of Certified Professional Secretary Program
(b) May and June 1997: Held seminars for Judges concerning DUI
(c) March 18, 1996 and July 8, 1996: Lectured at Orientation School for Magistrates, civil and criminal appeals
(d) August 1990-1991: Instructor at the Berkeley County Sheriff Reserve Officer Training Course
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Stokes did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Stokes did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Stokes has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Stokes was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Stokes reported that he has no knowledge of his last Martindale-Hubbell rating as an attorney or a judge. He has never requested a rating or subscribed to the publication.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Stokes appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Stokes appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Stokes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Stokes served as Assistant Appellate Defender with the S.C. Office of Appellate Defense from 1985 to 1988; was a partner in the general practice firm of Pieper & Stokes (later became Kinard, Pieper & Stokes) from 1988 to 1990; was Assistant Solicitor for the Ninth Judicial circuit from 1990 to 1991; and has been in private practice as a sole practitioner since 1991. Judge Stokes has a general practice with an emphasis on criminal and civil litigation, including probate, personal injury, real estate, and appellate law. He has also served as the Municipal Judge for the City of Hanahan since January 1, 1993, and he has served as the Master-in-Equity for Berkeley County since October 14, 1996.
·Judge Stokes listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) South Carolina (City of Hanahan) v. DeLoach, 94- CP-08-1362. September 28, 1994. Return to Notice of Intent to Appeal.
(b) South Carolina Jobs-Economic Development Authority v. Marine Energy Systems, et al., 96- CP-08-1153. January 7, 1997. Master's Report and Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale.
(c) Leon Hill v. Alma M. Major, et al., 95-CP-08- 1741. January 6, 1997. Order.
(d) Raymond Majesty v. Charles G. Marion, Jr., et al., 95-CP-08-1874. December 23, 1996. Decree.
(e) Stanley E. Brunson, et al. v. Edgar Hawkins, Jr., 95-CP-08-997. October 31, 1996. Order.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Stokes' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Stokes is married to Cynthia Anne Woodward Stokes and has two children: Matthew Jared Stokes (10), and Caleb Woodward Stokes (7).
Judge Stokes reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) American Bar Association
(c) Berkeley County Bar Association (Secretary/Treasurer; 1995 to present)
(d) Charleston County Bar Association
(e) South Carolina Summary Court Judge's Association, Education Committee member, 1995
Judge Stokes provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Member, North Charleston United Methodist Church (Chairman, Board of Trustees, Finance Committee, Administrative Board, Substitute Sunday School Teacher, Day Care Board)
(b) Contributing Member, Fishburne Elementary PTA
(c) Member, School Improvement Council, Fishburne Elementary School
(d) Youth Coach, Hanahan Recreation Dept.
·Judge Stokes stated, "In addition to those appeals listed herein, I have personally handled numerous appeals, representing clients as sole counsel, lead counsel, and co-counsel. Those appeals in which opinions have been published are, as follows:
Washington v. Washington, 419 S.E.2d 779 (1992)
Cobbs v. State, 408 S.E.2d 223 (1991)
Austin v. State, 409 S.E.2d 395 (1991)
State v. Tanner, 385 S.E.2d 832 (1989)
Frett v. State, 378 S.E.2d 249 (1988)
State v. Roof, 380 S.E.2d 828 (1989)
State v. Ates, 377 S.E.2d 98 (1989)
State v. Darby, 377 S.E.2d 340 (1989)
State v. Berntsen, 367 S.E.2d 152 (1988)
State v. Morris, 345 S.E.2d 152 (1986)
In the Interest of Angela H., 340 S.E.2d 544 (1986)
In 1994 - 1995, I was selected to and served on the Citizens' Advisory Committee of Berkeley County Council for the study of and modification of the Magistrate's Court system in the county."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Culclasure meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as Master-in-Equity.
Judge Culclasure was born on June 20, 1943. He is 54 years old and a resident of Calhoun County. Judge Culclasure provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Culclasure.
Judge Culclasure demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Culclasure 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 Culclasure testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Culclasure testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Culclasure to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Culclasure provided that he has met CLE and JCLE requirements during the last five years.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Culclasure did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Culclasure did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Culclasure has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Culclasure was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Culclasure reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Judge Culclasure appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Culclasure appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Culclasure was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Culclasure has practiced law with:
Furman R. Gressette October 1974-December 1974
Felder & Culclasure January 1975-September 1976
Thomas P. Culclasure September 1976-March 1994
Walker, Morgan &
Manning March 1994-November 1994
Thomas P. Culclasure November 1994-September 1996
Horger, Horger, Lanier,
' Culclasure & Knight, LLPSeptember 1996-August 1997
Thomas P. Culclasure September 1997-Present
Judge Culclasure has served as the Master-in-Equity for Calhoun County since 1977. Judge Culclasure reported that while all of his cases have been very significant to the litigants, they have been straight-forward foreclosures and partition actions.
·Judge Culclasure listed the following as his most significant litigated matters:
(a) State vs. Johnson-Death penalty
(b) Menefee vs. Driggers-extended domestic litigation
(c) Brakefield vs. Murph-unique partition
(d) State vs. Jones-extensive criminal charges
(e) State vs. Simmons-Kidnaping and Criminal Sexual Conduct
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Culclasure's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Culclasure is married to Donna N. Culclasure and has two children: William Todd Culclasure, age 33, a Real Estate Appraiser and Thomas P. Culclasure, Jr., age 25, a student.
Judge Culclasure reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Young meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Master-in-Equity.
Mr. Young is a resident of North Charleston. Mr. Young provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Young.
Judge Young demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Young testified that he had no campaign expenditures to date.
Judge Young 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 Young testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Young to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Young provided that during the previous five years he has attended all of the required continuing legal education programs. He has also been a guest lecturer at two CLEs sponsored by Stewart Title Insurance and at a CLE sponsored by the South Carolina Bar. He reports that the most recent CLE at which he lectured was sponsored by the Bar in October 1996 and entitled "Practicing before Masters in Equity and Special Referees." He has also attended a week-long session at the National Judicial College each of the past two years.
Judge Young reported that he taught a class in business law and the regulatory environment approximately twice a year for the past three years for the Charleston branch of Southern Wesleyan University.
Judge Young reported that he has designed and published a web page for the Charleston County Master-in-Equity's office. This page is located at http://www.awod.com/gallery/master. This is the only web page of its kind in the state. The site provides a brief history of the master-in-equity court, links to other legal sites on the Internet, memos and orders of interest to the legal community, and forms to aid in drafting and pleadings. The forms section is the most popular feature. It has over forty documents and was designed to help those who practice before the master draft pleadings and orders in areas with which they might need assistance.
Judge Young reported that since he became a judge the only extra-judicial community involvement he has felt comfortable with is coaching his son's baseball team and being his pack leader for Cub Scouts. He also serves on a committee with the local Boy Scout Council which attempts to start scouting in low income/urban areas. Because of the restrictions placed on the judiciary regarding fund-raising, he resigned from the Board of Directors of the CSU Buc Club and the Rotary Club of North Charleston. He stated he has not used his office to further either of these remaining interests.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Young did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Young did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Young has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Young reported that he only recently checked Martindale-Hubbell to see if he was listed and found he was not. He subsequently registered on the Internet and received the application for listing. He reports he does not know why he was not listed.
Judge Young reported he was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1990 and was re-elected in 1992.
Judge Young has received the following awards:
(a) Honorary Doctorate Award by University of Charleston, 1992
(b) Order of the Palmetto, 1994
(6) Physical health:
Judge Young appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Young appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Young was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Young was associated with the law firm of Howard Chapman, P.A. from November of 1983 until Mr. Chapman's death in December, 1984. From 1984 until December, 1995, he was a sole proprietor with his own law office in North Charleston. He was acting city attorney for the City of Charleston from January-April, 1995.
Judge Young was appointed as North Charleston Municipal Judge in December 1988 and held that position until he resigned to run for the legislature in August, 1990. The jurisdiction of the court was criminal misdemeanor matters. He heard both bench trials and jury trials.
Judge Young was elected Charleston County Master-in-Equity in May 1995. He was sworn in on December 31, 1995, and has held office continuously since. This court can hear any non-jury matter which is referred to it. There are no other jurisdictional limits.
Judge Young was appointed Special Circuit Court Judge for Charleston County by Chief Justice Finney in March 1997 to assist the circuit court in preparing cases for trial, hearing appeals, and assisting the chief administrative judge in any manner he sees fit.
·Judge Young listed his most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Seabrook v. Wittschen.
(b) Maxwell v. Drummond.
(c) Main v. Thomason.
(d) International Mariculture Resources v. Grant.
(e) Edisto Farms v. SCDNR. Order Attached. (Restraining Order was later dissolved by S.Ct. Unpublished)
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Young's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Young is married to Janice Marie Usry. They have two children: Grace Lee Young (age 10), Roger, Jr. (Hank) Young (age 8).
Judge Young reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar, 1983-date
(b) Charleston County Bar Association, 1983-date
Judge Young provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) The 100 Club of Charleston, 1992-93 (Board of Directors)
(b) Charleston Southern University Buc Club, 1992- 95 (Board of Directors)
(c) Rotary Club of North Charleston, 1994-95
(d) Deer Park Baptist Church (Board of Deacons 1992-95)
(e) South Carolina Junior Golf Association Advisory Board, 1994
(f) Pack Leader, Club Scouts, 1996 - present
(g) Yeamans Hall Golf Club, 1995 - April 1997
·Judge Young stated, "I have found this position to be the most intellectually rewarding thing I have ever done professionally. I consider myself fortunate to be able to do it. The position of Master-in-Equity is not very well understood by the public and even by some members of the bar. I have worked to educate the public and the bar about the duties of the office and have encouraged lawyers to consider the benefits of referring their cases to this court, i.e., a day/time certain trail within a relatively short period of time. To some extent I feel I have succeeded. I have met with the new chief administrative judge at the beginning of each term to let him know of my willingness to hear cases and assist with the docket in any way I can.
I enjoy the broad exposure to a number of different legal issues. I also enjoy legal research, opinion writing, and the interaction with the bar. I welcome lawyers who feel they can discuss legal matters which are not pending before me. I particularly welcome the opportunity to talk to young lawyers who are still trying to find their way through a difficult system. In that respect I remember the courtesies older lawyers extended to me when I first became a member of the bar.
It has been my experience both as a lawyer and a judge that people feel justice has been served if they can tell their story to someone whom they perceive to be fair. People's confidence in the judicial system is enhanced when they feel the judge listened to them and treated them fairly and with respect. I have always tried to keep in mind that the hearing over which I am presiding is probably the most important thing in these people's lives. I recall the experiences I had with judges when I was a lawyer. Without exception I felt like justice was better administered by the judges who were dignified and thoughtful in their temperament. Their actions earned them my respect. For that reason I have always attempted to treat people with courtesy and respect when they are in my courtroom. I am well aware that my demeanor will influence people's sense of justice. The most gratifying thing I have ever had said about me was when a lawyer whom I ruled against was quoted in the newspaper as saying he thought the judge gave him a fair trial. That is all I could ever ask."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Watts meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Judge Watts was born on June 15, 1950. He is 47 years old and a resident of Dorchester County. Judge Watts provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Watts.
Judge Watts demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Watts reported that since 1994, he served as Dorchester County Master-in-Equity and since 1995, he served as a Special Circuit Court Judge.
Judge Watts 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 Watts testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Watts testified that he had no campaign expenditures to date.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Watts to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Watts provided that during the previous five years, he has attended Friday seminars sponsored by the CLE division of the SC Bar or by NBI. He further provides that when he was practicing law full time, the topics were generally related to real estate, business organizations, and estate planning. Since becoming a Master-in-Equity, the topics mostly relate to courtroom practice.
Judge Watts reported that he has taught Business Law I twice as an adjunct instructor for Trident Technical College.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Watts did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Watts did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Watts has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Watts was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Watts provided that he served in the United States Air Force from 1976 to 1980. He received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of Captain.
Judge Watts reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Judge Watts appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Watts appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Watts was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Watts was an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force from 1976 to 1980. He prosecuted court martials, conducted administrative hearings and investigations, adjudicated small claims against the Air Force, prepared and reviewed environmental impact assessments of base activities, advised commanders on federal law and Air Force regulations, advised individual members on personal legal matters, and conducted seminars for base personnel on the military justice system and on the international law of war.
From 1984 to present, Judge Watts practiced general law with an emphasis on all matters related to real estate, business, estate planning, and probate. He engaged in business and real estate litigation. He closed business purchases, commercial and residential real estate purchases, and loans. Judge Watts also created and represented business and non-profit organizations.
From 1994 to present, Judge Watts serves as Dorchester County Master-in-Equity hearing cases involving real estate, specific performance, and damages in default cases. From 1995 to present, he serves as a Special Circuit Court Judge entertaining motions and presiding over nonjury cases.
·Judge Watts listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Atlantic Ready Mix v. Barge-Wagener, et al.; 94- CP-18-206
(b) Advanced Electrolysis v. Adair; 94-CP-18-744
(c) Sizemore v. Gemmett; 94-CP-18-820
(d) NationsBank v. Carmel; 95-CP-18-364
(e) Goodwine v. United Dominions Realty; 95-CP- 18-536
These are significant because the evidence presented numerous issues to address.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Watts' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Watts is married to Judith Anne Stein Watts and they have two children: Sean P. Watts, age 17 and Paul R. Watts, age 13.
Judge Watts reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association.
Judge Watts provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Dorchester County Advisory Board, Trident United Way (1991 through 1994)
(b) Summerville Family YMCA, Board of Directors (1989 through 1992; served as board's president in 1992)
(c) Dorchester County Development Corporation (1992 to present; served as president from 1994 to 1996)
(d) Summerville Oakbrook Breakfast Rotary Club (1992 to present)
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Simmons meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Master-in-Equity.
Judge Simmons was born on December 4, 1956. He is 41 years old and a resident of Greenville. Judge Simmons provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Simmons.
Judge Simmons demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Simmons testified that he had no campaign expenditures to date.
Judge Simmons 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 Simmons reported that he has spoken with several members of the Greenville Legislative Delegation to assist with a petition seeking his reappointment by the Governor.
Judge Simmons testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Simmons to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Judge Simmons has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Judge Simmons provided that he generally attended more "CLE" courses during the previous five years than required. Judge Simmons reported he has taken several courses at the National Judicial College since coming on the Bench. He has also implemented and helped organize the first continuing legal education program for Equity Court Judges (Masters in Equity).
Judge Simmons reported that he has lectured at CLE programs for the Greenville Bar, spoken at the South Carolina Bar's "Law School for Non-Lawyers", and has also spoken at the law school's "Bridge the Gap" program for new lawyers. He has lectured to law school classes at the University of South Carolina and has appeared on television as a panelist to discuss different legal topics. Judge Simmons reports he has taught in the Paralegal Program at Greenville Technical College and has lectured at South Carolina Bar Meetings.
Judge Simmons reported that he has published the following articles:
(a) "Tips for Non-Jury Practice" published in S.C. Lawyer May/June 1993.
(b) Contributing writer to South Carolina Jurisprudence published Summer of 1995.
(c) Article for University of South Carolina Law School Alumni Magazine published Spring of 1993.
(d) "Drafting Enforceable Non-Compete Agreements" S.C. Bar, May 1995.
(e) Mortgage Foreclosures; A S.C. Primer S.C. Lawyer Spring/Summer 1995.
Judge Simmons reports extra-judicial involvement of being an Elder and Youth Advisor at First Presbyterian Church, Greenville as well as numerous civic groups, but none have in any way related to his office.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Simmons did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Simmons did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Simmons has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Simmons reported that while he was private practice for over six years, he never had the opportunity to be rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Simmons reported he has received the following awards:
(a) Greenville Jaycees "Outstanding Young Distinguished Service Award" (1991)
(b) SC Bar Associations "Outstanding Young Lawyer of the Year" (1989)
(c) Wade Hampton Sertoma Club "Outstanding Service to Mankind Award" (1989)
(d) Big Brother of the Year, Southeastern United States (1988)
(e) Who's Who in American Law
(6) Physical health:
Judge Simmons appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Simmons appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Simmons was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Simmons clerked for the Honorable C. Victor Pyle, Jr., from 1982- 83. Judge Simmons then joined and became a partner in Carter, Smith Law Firm from 1983 through 1985. His practice was general litigation, primarily civil. From 1986 to 1989, Judge Simmons was a partner at Wilkins, Nelson, Kittredge, and Simmons. He continued practicing general litigation while also doing significant amounts of domestic law. In 1989, Judge Simmons became an Equity Court Judge for Greenville County, where he has served up to the present time. He also has routinely served as a Special Court Judge in both the Common Pleas and General Sessions since 1990.
·Judge Simmons listed his most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 SC 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). This case involved interpretation of the road closure statute found at Section 57-9-10. This was a novel and hotly litigated question that took over two full days of trial. The decision to close the road was ultimately affirmed by our Supreme Court.
(b) Culler v. Blue Ridge Electric Co-op, Inc., 309 SC 243, 422 S.E.2d 91 (1992). This case involved a wrongful discharge claim by an employee who contended he was terminated for failure to participate in a P.A.C. membership program at Blue Ridge Electric. My ruling that his termination was based upon poor job performance was upheld on appeal to the Supreme Court.
(c) Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority v. City of Easley, et al., 310 SC 346, 426 S.E.2d 787 (SC S.Ct. 1993). This case involved interpretation of the legislative enabling Act that establish the Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority. It was a novel issue involving numerous witnesses which took two days to try. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of $2,000,000.00.
(d) Spinx Oil Co., Inc. v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co., 310 SC 477, 427 S.E.2d 649 (SC S.Ct. 1993). This case involved novel issues concerning interpretation of environmental hazards liability insurance coverage. The ruling of the coverage question which involved over $350,000.00, was affirmed by our Supreme Court.
(e) ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 320 SC 143, 463 S.E.2d 618. This case involved novel issues concerning accountants liability to third party investors. This case arose out of a $20,000,000 loan wherein the Defendants were auditors for the company Plaintiff loaned the funds to. After being assigned the case, and handling any and all Motions for one year, I granted Summary Judgment. The case was affirmed in part and revered in part by the Court of Appeals and on cert., by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Judge Simmons reported he was a part-time instructor in the Paralegal Program at Greenville Technical College. He taught for more than nine years. He taught classes in domestic relations, wills, and probate, and the South Carolina Legal System (1987-1996). Also, pursuant to agreement of attorneys, he occasionally hears cases from different circuits as a Special Referee. With these cases, he hears all the evidence and makes decisions. (1989-present).
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Simmons' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Simmons is married to Claudia Elizabeth Spencer and has three children: Charles B. Simmons, III (age 9), Elizabeth Spencer Simmons (age 6), Mason Whitaker Simmons (age 1).
Judge Simmons reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Greenville County Bar Association
(c) Greenville County Bar Association Young Lawyer Division (President 1988)
Judge Simmons provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) First Presbyterian Church, Greenville, (Elder, Senior High Advisor, Sunday School teacher)
(b) SC Equity Court Council (Statewide group of all Masters), 1994-present (President)
(c) Equity Court (Master-in-Equity) representative to SC Supreme Court Bench-Bar Committee
(d) Greenville Zoo Advisory Board, 1993-96
(e) Advisory Board, Big Brothers/Big Sisters (Chairman 1987-89)
(f) Pendleton Place Home for Abused Children (Board of Directors)
(g) Kindergarten Board, First Presbyterian Church (Chairman 1993)
(h) Leadership Greenville (Class Speaker)
(i) Advisory Committee, Paralegal Program, Greenville Tech (Chairman 1992)
·Judge Simmons stated, "I feel very qualified for Master-in-Equity for Greenville County. I was in private practice for over six years, and tried hundreds of cases during that time. I have also had extensive judicial experience since being Equity Court Judge. I have also been appointed Special Circuit Judge routinely since 1989. When I started on the Bench, I committed to be the best judge I could be in all respects; from legal, to civic, to spiritual. I understand the responsibility of the position and stand willing and ready to accept it."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cross meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Master-in-Equity.
Judge Cross was born on February 17, 1942. He is 55 years old and is a resident of Conway. Judge Cross provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and is a licensed attorney in South Carolina.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cross.
Judge Cross demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Cross testified that in January 1996 he paid $3.20 for postage in furtherance of his candidacy.
Judge Cross 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 Cross testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Cross to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Cross provided that during the previous five years he has attended the number of required continuing legal education programs and JCLE programs.
Judge Cross reported that other than Trinity United Methodist Church and Big Brothers/Sister Program, he has no community involvement nor has he used this office to further these interests.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Cross did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cross did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cross has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Cross reported that his rating in Martindale-Hubbell was "BV."
(6) Physical health:
Judge Cross appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Cross appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Cross is a licensed attorney in the state of South Carolina.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Cross worked at Singleton and Singleton from 1967-1978. He worked at Cross and Singleton from 1973-1979. He worked at Cross, Singleton, Burroughs & Norton from 1979-1996. Judge Cross reported that his practice from 1967-1996 involved real estate, banking, corporate, and business-related general practice.
Judge Cross reported that he was appointed as Recorder for the City of Conway from 1969-1974, with jurisdiction the same as a Magistrate. He was also appointed as Master in Equity of Horry County and served from April 1, 1996 to the present. Cases and jurisdiction are by Order of Reference.
·Judge Cross listed his most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Associated Medical Specialists PA vs. S.C. Tax Commission et al. Affirmed unpublished opinion No. 97-UP-447. Court of Appeals
(b) Peterson Outdoor Advertising vs. City of Myrtle Beach, S.C. Reversed Opinion No. 24672. Supreme Court.
(c) Sea Cabins vs. City of North Myrtle Beach, S.C., 93-CP-26-2616, on appeal.
(d) Bob Barnhill et al. vs. City of North Myrtle Beach, S.C., 93-CP-26-1315, on appeal.
(e) Ocean Creek Resort, Inc. et al. vs. Victoria S. Riggione and Carmella R. Delia, 95-CP-26-377, on appeal.
Judge Cross reported that he was the Recorder for the City of Conway from 1969-1974. He has been the Master in Equity of Horry County from 1996 to the present, serving as an administrator.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Cross's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Cross is married to Mary Virginia Allen Cross and has two children: Mary Catherine Parypenski (age 25, teacher), James Stanton Cross, III (age 24, student).
Judge Cross reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Horry County Bar Association
Judge Cross provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Clemson University Liberal Arts Advancement Board
(b) Big Brothers/Sisters of Horry County
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Burgdorf meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Judge Burgdorf was born on July 16, 1948. He is 49 years old and a resident of Orangeburg County. Judge Burgdorf provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney since 1973.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Burgdorf.
Judge Burgdorf demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Burgdorf 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 Burgdorf testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Burgdorf testifed that he had no campaign expenditures to date.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Burgdorf to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Burgdorf provided that during the past five years, he has attended continuing legal education courses directly related to the duties of Master-in-Equity such as foreclosures, partitions, and debt collection mediation. In addition, the Equity Court Council has provided continuing legal education courses.
Judge Burgdorf also reported that he has taught business law and criminal law for many years at Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Burgdorf did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Burgdorf did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Burgdorf has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Burgdorf was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Burgdorf reported that he served in the United States Army Reserve from 1969 until 1974. He received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of 1st Lieutenant.
Judge Burgdorf reported that he was appointed to the Orangeburg County Board of Education. (1976-1986)
Judge Burgdorf reported that he was appointed to the Springfield Municipal Election Commission. (1976-1986)
Judge Burgdorf reported that his last available rating with Martindale-Hubbell was "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Judge Burgdorf appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Burgdorf appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Burgdorf was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Since his graduation from law school, he worked as a sole practitioner from 1974 until 1986. Thereafter, he was appointed Master-in-Equity and his practice focused mainly on real estate, title work, and closings.
Judge Burgdorf reported that he has served as a Special Circuit Court Judge for the First Judicial Circuit since 1994.
·Judge Burgdorf listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Leahy v. The Starflo Corp. 431 SE2d 567 (S.C. 1993);
(b) Moody v. City of Orangeburg 460 SE2d 374 (S.C. 1995);
(c) Gilmore v. Baker Masonry, Inc. (Unpublished opinion) No 96-UP-487;
(d) Glover v. Investment Life 439 SE2d 297 (S.C. 1993); and
(e) Phillips v. Santee-Cooper Resort 93-CP-38-525
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Burgdorf's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Burgdorf is married to Jan Eugenia Johnson Burgdorf and they have three children: Karl Davie Burgdorf, Editor of United Methodist Advocate, age 27; F. Heath Burgdorf, a student at the College of Charleston, age 21; and Olin Prather Burgdorf, a landscaping assistant, age 19.
Judge Burgdorf reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Orangeburg County Bar Association.
Judge Burgdorf provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Orangeburg Rotary Club, Attendance Chairman
(b) Springfield United Methodist Church, Chairman - Pastor/Parish Relations Committee, Finance Committee.
·Judge Burgdorf stated, "For the last several years I have acted as Special Circuit Court Judge pro bona. Even though this takes quite a toll on my time, I feel that such voluntary service is essential for everyone to give something back to the community."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Strickland meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as Master in Equity.
Judge Strickland was born on September 24, 1955. He is 42 years old and a resident of Richland County. Judge Strickland provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Strickland.
Judge Strickland demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
The Commission finds that Judge Strickland should guard against the appearance of involvement in partisan political activities.
Judge Strickland 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 Strickland testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Strickland testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Strickland to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Strickland provided that during the previous five years he has fully complied with J.C.L.E. requirements.
Judge Strickland reported that he had lectured on the following legal and judicial issues:
(a) "Bridge the Gap", 1994-present
(b) U.S.C. Law School courses: Legislation, Fall 1989 and Fall 1990; S.C. Trial and Appellate Practice, Fall 1992.
Judge Strickland reported that he has written the following articles:
(a) Op-Ed piece The State, June 18, 1997.
(b) Op-Ed piece The Columbia Record, late 1980's.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Strickland did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Strickland did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Strickland has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Strickland was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Strickland reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV".
Judge Strickland served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1977-1985. He resigned his commission in 1997 and is still listed in Individual Ready Reserve.
Judge Strickland was appointed to the Richland County Planning Commission from 1996-1997; he was appointed to the S.C. Jobs Economic Development Authority from 1987-1989; and he was elected to the S.C. Republican Executive Committee from 1987-1989.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Strickland appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Strickland appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Strickland was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Strickland was Second Assistant Parliamentarian for the United States Senate from May 1981 to December 1983; he was Special Assistant (legal) to Commissioner Sandra Brown Armstrong of the Consumer Product Safety Commission in Washington D.C. from December 1983 to April 1984; he was a law clerk for the Honorable Matthew J. Perry, Jr., U.S. District Judge, from June 1984 to September 1985; from September 1985 to July 1989, he was an associate with the law firm of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough; and he has been the Richland County Master in Equity since July 1989. Judge Strickland also has served as Special Circuit Court Judge, 5th Judicial Circuit, on an ad hoc basis since March 1994.
·Judge Strickland listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Wolf v. Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Company, 420 S.E. 2d 217 (S.C. App. 1992). 1990 Master in Equity.
(b) Reilly v. Smith, 1995 Master in Equity.
(c) State v. Derrick, 1995 Special Circuit Court Judge Appellate Decision.
(d) Mahon v. Chesoni, Unpublished Opinion No. 94- UP-102 (S.C. App. 1994). 1992 Master in Equity.
(e) NAB v. Corbin, 1996 Master in Equity.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Strickland's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Strickland is married to Karen Ann Grogan Strickland and has one child: Helen Monroe Strickland (one year).
Judge Strickland reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Richland County Bar Association
(c) Columbia Lawyer's Association
(d) South Carolina Black Lawyer's Association
(e) District of Columbia Bar Association
(f) National Bar Association
(g) American Bar Association
Judge Strickland provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) NAACP, Lifetime Member
(b) The Palmetto Club of Columbia, Member
(c) The Princeton Club of New York, Former Member
·Judge Strickland stated, "Also, please note the broad range of reported appellate decisions involving my rulings.
Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 430 S.E.2d 848 (S.C. 1996)
Waters v. S.C. Land Resources Conservation Comm.,321 S.C. 219, 467 S.E.2d 913 (S.C. 1996)
Medical Park OB\GYN, P.A. v. Ragin, 321 S.C. 139, 467 S.E.2d 261 (S.C. App. 1996)
King v. S.C. Retirement Systems, 319 S.C. 822, 461 S.E.2d 822 (S.C.1995)
Russo v. Sutton, 317 S.C. 441, 454 S.E.2d 895 (S.C. 1995)
United Carolina Bank v. Caroprop, Ltd., 316 S.C. 1, 446 S.E.2d 414 (S.C. 1994)
Norris v. Heyward, 312 S.C. 67, 439 S.E.2d 264(S.C. 1993)
McLeod v. Baptiste, 315 S.C. 246, 433 S.E.2d 834 (S.C. 1993)
Cerney v. Salters, 311 S.C. 430, 429 S.E.2d 809 (S.C. 1993)
Goddard v. Fairways Development General Partnership, 310 S.C. 408, 426 S.E.2d 828 (S.C. App. 1993)
National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., 310 S.C. 116, 425 S.E.2d 754 (S.C.App.1992)
Griffin v. Capital Cash, 310 S.C. 288, 423 S.E.2d 143 (S.C.App.1992)
Wolf v. Colonial Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 309 S.C. 100, 420 S.E.2d 217 (S.C.App.1992)
Postal v. Mann, 308 S.C. 385, 418 S.E.2d 322 (S.C.App.1992)
Fisher v. S.C.D.H.E.C., 309 S.C. 10, 419 S.E.2d 794 (S.C.App.1992)
Dibble v. Schade, 308 S.C. 88, 417 S.E.2d 104 (S.C.App.1992)
Stoudenmire Heating & Air Conditioning Co., Inc. v. Craig Bldg. Partnership, 308 S.C. 298,417 S.E.2d 634 (S.C.App.1992)
Moore v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm., 308 S.C. 160, 417 S.E.2d 555 (S.C.1992)
Cumberland Wood Products, Inc. v. Bennett, 308 S.C. 268, 417 S.E.2d 617 (S.C.App.1992)"
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Couch meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Master in Equity.
Judge Couch was born on February 1, 1950. He is 47 years old and is a resident of Spartanburg. Judge Couch provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Couch.
Judge Couch demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Couch reported that he has not made any contributions since he filed his letter of intent with this commission. He made a contribution to Rep. Robert Walker, of $100.00, September 26, 1997, after he had made known his intention to seek the position of master. He had received an invitation to a Bar-B-Que for Rep. Walker prior to his announcement, but was unable to attend. Rep. Walker is a former school board friend (since he served for years on the Spartanburg County District No.1 Board) and has been extremely helpful to the City of Landrum where he lives and where he served as the City Attorney until this appointment. Judge Couch reported that his contribution was in no way related to his candidacy, but rather was meant to recognize Rep. Walker as a friend of the City and public education.
Judge Couch testified that he has not, nor has anyone on his behalf contacted any others members of the General Assembly concerning his candidacy other than the Spartanburg Delegation. Judge Couch reported that when the Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation held a non-binding preference poll in January 1997, for the purpose of determining who the delegation would prefer for appointment as Master in Equity, he contacted all of the members of the legislative delegation either by letter, phone, or personally advising them of his interest in the position and asking them to support him in this poll. No other member of the General Assembly, besides the Spartanburg Delegation, has been contacted, nor has a commitment for the confirmation vote been requested.
Judge Couch reported that during the preference poll held by the Spartanburg Delegation, he gave several of his acquaintances' names to members of the Delegation as references. Judge Couch is unaware if any of these members contacted these references. The persons listed as references were Barry Whitman of Clinton and Gloria Butler of Spartanburg. Judge Couch's law partners Toney L. Lister, Ty Courtney, and John Hawkins also made contacts on his behalf to seek support only for the preference poll conducted by the local delegation, but not commitments for any later election.
Judge Couch testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Couch testified that he had no campaign expenditures.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Couch to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Couch provided that during the previous five years he has attended the required continuing legal education courses by the Bar Association and seminars presented by the South Carolina School Boards Association. Judge Couch reports his interests have been in Family Law, Insurance Law, School Law, and Ethics. Since becoming interested in the Master's position, he has ordered and studied course materials from a seminar on that office and has attempted to educate himself more fully in the matters involved with that office.
Judge Couch reported that he has taught a course in Business Law at Spartanburg Methodist College for one semester. He has also assisted Matthew Henderson in teaching a Business Law Course at Wofford College.
Judge Couch reported that he has published articles in several publications for the South Carolina School Boards Association in his capacity as President of that organization but has not kept up with the specific citations for those articles.
Judge Couch reported that he is a member and moderator of the Fairforest Baptist Church. He has not used his judicial office to further this interest. He is currently serving on the steering committee of the Spartanburg Visions Committee for the City of Spartanburg. He has not used his judicial office to further this interest.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Couch did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Couch did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Couch has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Couch reported that his rating in Martindale- Hubbell was "BV."
Judge Couch reported that he has served as an elected School Board Member of Spartanburg County School District No.6 from March 1977 until June 1997.
(6) Physical health:
Judge Couch appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Couch appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Couch has been a licensed attorney in the state of South Carolina since 1975.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Couch worked at Henderson and Lister in Spartanburg from 1975-1977. Judge Couch worked at Henderson, Lister, Couch, Brandt and Ackerman from 1977-1980, Henderson, Lister Couch & Brandt from 1980-1985, Lister and Couch from 1985-1989, and Lister, Couch & Courtney from 1989-1997.
Judge Couch reported that he has always been involved in the general practice of law with emphasis on the following areas of practice: real estate closing, domestic litigation, civil litigation, probate, and minor criminal practice. During most of his practice he has spent the majority of his time involved in real estate closings. In 1992, his firm made the decision to not emphasize the real estate practice because of changes in the practice. Banks were becoming increasingly more demanding, fees were stagnant, government regulations placed increasing demands on record keeping and reporting without any means of recovering those expenses necessary to accomplish these tasks, and the exposure to risk was not in line with the fees generated. As a result Judge Couch turned more toward the domestic practice and civil trial practice. He did not like this change as much as he thought he would and as a result he began to look for an avenue in which he could become more involved in real estate matters. Thus, he became interested in the Master's position.
Judge Couch reported that he was Town Judge for the Town of Cowpens from 7/82 to 6/86. He handled only minor criminal and traffic matters. He was asked by the mayor to serve and must have been approved by the Town Council, although he does not specifically remember the process that was used to select him. He held court in that office one evening per month. Judge Couch has served as the Special Master-in-Equity for Spartanburg County since July 1, 1997. Judge Couch stated he has twice served as a Special Circuit Judge in Cherokee County for Non-Jury Common Pleas Court since being appointed as the Special Master-in-Equity.
Judge Couch reported that because of his brief service on the bench (since July 1, 1997) he has not had any reported cases and he is unaware if any of his decisions have been appealed yet. He has decided several cases such as partition actions and division of partnership assets. During one of the non-jury days, he held vacated a default judgment based on the failure of the foreign judgment holder to give property notice of the debtor's rights. Judge Couch reported that he has averaged about thirty-five judicial sales per month since he took office and he has scheduled status conferences in all cases that were left in his office for more than 120 days. He was able to clear or set for a final hearing approximately 95% of them. He expects to clear the office's docket as much as possible and to keep it that way.
(9) Judicial temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Couch's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Couch is married to Claire Marie Ashmore Couch and has two children: William Ramsey Couch (age 16), student, Robert Ashmore Couch, III (age 16) student.
Judge Couch reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Spartanburg County Bar Association
Judge Couch provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Spartanburg County School District Six Board of Trustees, 1977-97 (Chairman on three occasions, last being 1996-97)
(b) South Carolina School Boards Association, 1977- 1997 (Past President 1997, President 1996, Vice-President 1995, Secretary 1994, Member of Board of Directors 1989-1997)
(c) Chairman of the SCSBA Worker's Compensation Trust, 1990-97
(d) President of Shadowlakes Property Owners Association 1997
(e) Dorman High School PTA
(f) Member of the Steering Committee of the Visions Project for the City of Spartanburg, 1997
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Evans meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Judge Evans was born on December 11, 1942. He is 55 years old and a resident of Sumter County. Judge Evans provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1968.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Evans.
Judge Evans demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Evans 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 Evans reported that he has a substantial personal loan with a Mr. Joe S. Sublette, which may be a conflict of interest. Judge Evans would recuse himself in any matters with Mr. Sublette.
Judge Evans testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Evans testified that he had no campaign expenditures to date.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Evans to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Evans provided that during the previous five years, he normally exceeds his continuing legal education courses and his judicial continuing legal education courses. He reports that most of his continuing legal education courses have been met by attending programs at the USC Law School or satellite [video] programs at USC Sumter.
Judge Evans reported that in April of 1979, he participated as a panelist at a CLE entitled, "PREJUDGMENT AND POST JUDGMENT CREDITORS' REMEDIES," which was sponsored by the South Carolina Bar.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Evans did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Evans did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Evans has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Evans was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Evans provided that he joined the United States Marines Platoon Leader's Class Program, but was sent home upon arrival at Quantico, Virginia after being ruled physically ineligible to participate. He was given an Honorable Discharge.
Judge Evans reported that he is listed in Martindale- Hubbell as a practitioner, despite the fact that he is a member of the judiciary. His rating is "BV".
(6) Physical health:
Judge Evans appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental stability:
Judge Evans appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Evans was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1968.
Since his graduation from law school, in September of 1968, Judge Evans began working for Morris D. Mazursky in Sumter, South Carolina as an associate. In 1985, he and Mr. Mazursky formed a partnership which was dissolved in December of 1994. He then became associated with Weinberg, Brown, and McDougall in Sumter, South Carolina. He terminated his association with the firm in October of 1996. He then became a sole practitioner, which he currently maintains. Most of his practice is related to matters involving real estate.
Judge Evans stated that as a Master-In-Equity, he has not issued any orders or opinions which he feels are significant because most of his cases are routine Foreclosures, Partitions or Quiet Title Proceedings. The majority are uncontested. In lieu of his most significant orders or opinions, Judge Evans has listed his most significant litigated matters.
Judge Evans reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) federal: None.
(b) state: Normally appears in some court (family, magistrate, Common Pleas or General Sessions) at least two or three times each week.
Judge Evans reported the percentage of his practice during the last five years as follows:
(a) civil: 70%
(b) criminal: 05%
(c) domestic: 10%
Judge Evans reported the percentage of his practice in trial courts during the last five years as follows:
(a) jury: 10%
(b) non-jury: 90%
He served most often as sole counsel.
·Judge Evans listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Billy Burdell Parker v. Wilma F. Parker, Trustee, et al. [95-CP-43-0714]:
This case was tried as a non-jury matter before William M. Reynolds, Jr., Special Referee. I represented the plaintiff who was attempting to set aside a deed conveying substantial properties to the defendants. Our position was that the plaintiff signed the deed while mentally incompetent and under the influence of medication. As a result of a change in medical personnel and medications, the plaintiff became mentally competent and retained me to initiate this proceeding.
We succeeded in demonstrating that the plaintiff had been incompetent and under the influence of both medication and pressure from family members at the time he signed the deed. The order of judgment was issued on December 31, 1996, cancelling, terminating, and rescinding the deed and declaring void ab initio any interest purportedly passing thereunder.
This case is of no particular legal significance. However, it was personally satisfying, in that I was able to restore to the plaintiff substantial property interests of which he had been deprived by family members while incapacitated. It demonstrated to my client and the other litigants that our judicial system will not tolerate the improper deprivation of property interest and will restore them under the appropriate circumstances.
(b) Louis F. Sak, et al, v. Santee Cooper Resort, Inc. [Supreme Court Docket Number: 86-296];
In this action I represented a number of individuals who owned property and/or resided in the Santee Cooper Resort. The resort is, essentially, a retirement community in Orangeburg County. It was conceived and developed by a single individual who had little experience in real estate ventures of the magnitude and complexity of this project. For that reason, the by-laws of the Homeowners Association and the restrictive covenants presented a multitude of questions for the answers to which this action was commenced. in was retained to represent the plaintiffs.
The litigation was conducted in an emotionally charged atmosphere. That is because the litigants on both sides were neighbors, and, in some instances, close personal friends (at least prior to this action having been commenced). The principal defendant was represented by Bob Horger of the Orangeburg County Bar. He and in engaged in extensive discovery and a tremendous amount of legal research. Before the case was tried, it was certified as a class action. For the most part, Bob and in worked together to effect the certification, so that all parties having any interest in the properties subject to the covenants would be bound by the ultimate disposition of the action.
The case was heard, initially, by the Master-in-Equity in Orangeburg County who, for the most part, ruled with the defendant. His decision was appealed to the Circuit Court, where the appeal was heard by the Honorable William T. Howell. With few exceptions, Judge Howell confirmed the report of the Master-in-Equity. The case was then appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
While the case was on appeal, Bob Horger and in realized that any final decision reached by the court would produce hard feelings within the community. With the permission of our respective clients, we began to negotiate and finally came up with a "middle ground" resolution of the issues. The appeal was dismissed and the action was remanded to the Circuit Court where an order was issued adopting the terms and provisions of the negotiated settlement.
Since no decision was rendered by the Supreme Court (and, for that matter, no briefs were even filed there), this case is of no particular legal significance either. However, in was proud of the fact that Bob Horger and in were able to work together in a professional manner in an emotionally charged litigation environment to prevail upon our respective clients to accept compromises and accommodations with which they have been living for over ten years now. This case demonstrates that competent lawyers acting professionally can accomplish results mutually acceptable to the respective clients without running the gamut of the entire litigation process.
(c) Weathershield Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Appleby Lumber Company, Inc. et al. [92-CP-43-060];
In this case in represented Appleby Lumber Company, Inc. And G. Addison Appleby, its principal officer and shareholder. The action was commenced to intercept a bulk sale which the corporate defendant had negotiated in an effort to liquidate its business operations here in South Carolina. The plaintiff was one of the principal creditors of the corporate defendant. The individual defendant was a resident of the State of California.
The plaintiff's principal contention was that the individual defendant had "raided" the assets of the corporate defendant, thereby reducing the value of its assets to less than what was needed to satisfy all of the creditors.
This was another emotionally charged case, in that the principals of the plaintiff corporation made a number of disparaging remarks regarding the individual defendant and his activities in allegedly dissipating the assets of his corporation.
After much discovery, the matter was referred to the Honorable William M. Reynolds, Jr., Master in Equity. Judge Reynolds eventually ruled for the defendants, thereby permitting the bulk sale and the distribution of the sales proceeds to the creditors. This case was personally satisfying, in that the outcome of the case and even the order issued by the judge vindicated the individual defendant and exonerated him of any misconduct or wrongdoing. Since he was a successful businessman of previously unquestioned integrity and moral character, this meant a great deal to him. For this reason, his vindication and exoneration gave me a great deal of personal pride and satisfaction.
(d) Elizabeth M. Wyman, et al. v. Dorothy Nixon, et al. [Docket Number: 90-ES-43-00091]:
The plaintiff was the personal representative of the estate of Harrison Mahoney who died testate in 1990. Unfortunately, the will was poorly drafted and left a number of questions open regarding the disposition and distribution of estate assets. The family members were not able to reach any agreement, and the matter erupted into a family feud during the middle part of this decade. in initiated this action in January of 1997 in an effort to obtain a construction and interpretation of the will and an order authorizing an asset sale so that the claims filed by numerous creditors could be paid. Since we were dealing with a family situation, the litigation process was acrimonious, to say the least. The principal contest was between the defendants, none of whom could agree to any allocation or distribution of assets. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was caught in the middle but charged with the responsibility of administering the estate. Fortunately, in was able to help her do so.
Eventually, this matter was heard by the Honorable Bobby B. Rabon, the Probate Judge here in Sumter County. He issued an order which interpreted the will so as to establish the interests of the various devisees and legatees. The order also authorized the personal representative to sell the property, settle with the creditors, and distribute the surplus proceeds to the heirs and devisees. We have just negotiated a sale which should be consummated shortly. At that point, the creditors will be paid and the surplus proceeds will be disbursed.
Here, again, this case shows what can happen when competent counsel is retained to force a resolution of issues as to which there is no potential for compromise or accommodation. It shows that the judicial system can and does work, even at the lower levels (in this case, the Probate Court). in might add, too, that several of the defendants have "made up" since the Probate Court order was issued. That is something that would never have happened as long as they were permitted to continue feuding among themselves.
(e) Geneva Hurst Sexton v. W. Ansley Hurst, Jr., et al. [Docket Number: 90-CP-43-819].
In this case in represented the plaintiff. She was seeking to recover from the defendants (her brothers) assets which had been misappropriated from their mother during her lifetime. The brothers accomplished the misappropriation by conveying the assets to themselves, using (abusing!) powers of attorney which had been confirmed upon them by their mother. Although the assets were of considerable value, the defendants refused to include them in their mother's estate and, instead, insisted upon retaining them as intervivos "gifts" from their mother. Although no order was actually issued, we succeeded in negotiating a settlement pursuant to which all of the assets in dispute were distributed equally between the parties as though they had been included in the estate. Through this process, my client received her "fair share" of them.
There were a number of local attorneys involved in this action. As far as they were concerned, the principal significance of the proceeding was to educate them and (through them) other members of the Bar) regarding the prohibition against attorneys in fact using their authority to convey to themselves and third parties assets of their principal without specific authority or valuable consideration. Although this principal had been enunciated previously by the appellate courts of this jurisdiction, many members of the local Bar Association were unaware of it. Most of them are fully familiar with it at this time!
·Judge Evans listed five civil appeals he had personally handled:
(a) Gloria J. Norris, Individually and as Representative of the estate of Marie B. Jones v. Walter B. Jones, III, Individually: This decision was rendered by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. It was filed on November 7, 1995, as Unpublished Opinion No. 95-UP-289. I represented the Respondent.
(b) The State v. Blyther: This decision was rendered by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. It was filed on October 22, 1985. The citation is 287 S.C., 31, 336 S.E.2d 151 (1985). I represented the Appellant. No copies of my brief are any longer available.
(c) Hayne Federal Credit Union v. Bailey: This decision was rendered by the South Carolina Supreme Court. It was filed on August 11, 1997, as Opinion No. 24678. It has not been published yet. I represented the Respondent.
(d) Price v. Burrell: This decision was rendered by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. It was filed on February 18, 1993, as Unpublished Opinion No. 93-UP-042. I represented the Respondent.
(e) Crown Land Corporation v. Lester Brothers, Inc.: This decision was rendered by the South Carolina Supreme Court. It was filed on August 28, 1973. The citation is 261 S. C. 163, 199 S.E.2d 69 (1973). I represented the Appellant. No copies of my brief are any longer available.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Evans' temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Evans is married Holly S. Evans he has two children, both from a previous marriage. Lisa Rae Evans, age 32, an employee of the Children's Home In Columbia, South Carolina, and Jack Linwood Evans, age 26, a construction worker in and around Birmingham, Alabama.
Judge Evans reported that he has been divorced once. He was divorced from Janice H. Evans in 1987. Ms. Evans was the moving party and was awarded a "no fault" divorce on the grounds of separation for one year. The divorce was conducted in Richland County.
Judge Evans reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) Sumter County Bar Association, Present - currently; Past Secretary and Treasurer
Judge Evans provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Elk's Club of Sumter
·Judge Evans stated, "When I sought appointment to the office of Master in Equity, I received the unanimous endorsement of the Sumter County Bar Association. I am inclined to think that will be available again. To the best of my knowledge I have no opposition."
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Grier meets the qualifications prescribed by law for the judicial service.
Judge Grier was born on February 2, 1954. He is 59 years old and a resident of York County. Judge Grier provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1963.
(2) Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Grier.
Judge Grier demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Grier testified that he had no campaign expenditures to date.
Judge Grier 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 Grier testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Grier to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Based on Judge Grier's length of judicial service, his outstanding performance on the bench, and the responses to the commission's survey of the bench and bar regarding the candidate's academic ability, the commission, on motion, decided to waive the practice and procedure questions for Judge Grier.
Judge Grier provided that he attended a minimum of 12 hours of CLE classes each year.
Judge Grier has taught or lectured at law-related courses or conferences in the following areas:
(a) Practice before Masters in Equity and Special Referees
(b) Foreclosures, Partitions, Supplemental Proceedings and Proceedings upon the Reference
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Grier did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Grier did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Grier has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Grier reported his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV".
Judge Grier was appointed a Master in Equity for York County in July 1991 and has continued to serve in that position until present.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Grier appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Grier appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Grier was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1963.
Since graduation from law school, Judge Grier has served: in the U.S. Army, 1964-1967; as Legal Counsel, The Springs Company, Lancaster, SC, 1967-1968; in practice with Robert M. Ward, 1968-1983; in private practice, 1983-1991; and as Master in Equity, 1991-present.
·Judge Grier listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Ruocco v. SC State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, 92-CP-46-662. State of South Carolina, in the Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 2136, filed February 22, 1994.
(b) Wallace B. Dalton v. Southland Builders, Inc. et al., 92-CP-46-732. State of South Carolina, in the Court of Appeals, Opinion #94-CP-311, filed December 29, 1994.
(c) Crandall Close Bowles, et al. v. James S. Hodges, as Trustee, et al., 93-CP-29-541, 542 and 543. State of South Carolina, in the Supreme Court, Opinion #24304, filed August 28, 1995.
(d) Home Federal Savings Bank of South Carolina v. John Furman Cowart,_et al., 90-CP-890, State of South Carolina, in the Court of Appeals, Opinion #94-UP-128, filed April 13, 1994.
(e) South Carolina National Bank v. Southern Polymers, Inc., 90-CP-46-1641, State of South Carolina, in the Court of Appeals, Opinion #93-UP-323, filed December 7, 1993.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Grier's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Grier is married to Kay Whitener Grier and has three children: John Buford Grier, Jr. (age 32, Microbiologist), David D. Grier (age 26, Medical Student), and Charles H. Grier (age 25, Banker).
Judge Grier reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association
(b) The Equity Court Council
·Judge Grier stated "I have been a Special Circuit Court Judge since Sept. 8, 1993 to the present. We have disposed of more than 1,200 jury trial motions, to the best of my knowledge, no other Equity Court Judge handles jury-trial motions."
The following persons were unanimously found legally qualified:
Supreme Court
James E. Moore
Court of Appeals, Seat 9
Ralph K. Anderson, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge Division, Seat 5
Ray N. Stevens
First Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 2
Diane Schafer Goodstein
Michael P. Horger
James F. Walsh, Jr.
Second Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
Rodney A. Peeples
Third Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
Thomas W. Cooper, Jr.
Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
Paul M. Burch
Tenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
H. Dean Hall
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
Henry F. Floyd
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 4
John W. Kittredge
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
Sidney T. Floyd
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
John C. Hayes, III
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 2
Lee S. Alford
First Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seats 2 & 3
Mark A. Leiendecker
Nancy Chapman McLin
William J. Wylie, Jr.
Second Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 1
Peter R. Nuessle
Third Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 1
Ruben L. Gray
Fourth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 1
Roger E. Henderson
Fifth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 1
H. Bruce Williams
Fifth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 4
Donna S. Strom
Seventh Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 2
James F. Fraley, Jr.
R. Keith Kelly
James B. Paslay
Seventh Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 3
Wesley L. Brown
Eighth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 2
John M. Rucker
Ninth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 1
F. P. Segars-Andrews
Ninth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 3
Judy Cone Bridges
Ninth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 6
Jack A. Landis
Tenth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 1
Barry W. Knobel
Tenth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 2
Robert H. Cureton
Eleventh Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 1
Kellum W. Allen
Lisa G. Bernardin
Doni M. Bouknight
Twelfth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 3
Wylie H. Caldwell, Jr.
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 3
Amy C. Sutherland
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 4
Alvin D. Johnson
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 6
Timothy L. Brown
Bobby H. Mann, Jr.
Dianne S. Riley
Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 2
Jane Dowling Fender
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 2
Lisa A. Kinon
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court, Seat 1
John S. "Jack" Flynn
Nora B. Lewis
Master-in-Equity, Allendale County
Walter H. Sanders, Jr.
Master-in-Equity, Anderson County
Ellis B. Drew, Jr.
Master-in-Equity, Beaufort County
Thomas Kemmerlin, Jr.
Master-in-Equity, Berkeley County
D. Mark Stokes
Master-in-Equity, Calhoun County
Thomas P. Culclasure
Master-in-Equity, Charleston County
Roger M. Young
Master-in-Equity, Dorchester County
Patrick R. Watts
Master-in-Equity, Greenville County
Charles B. Simmons, Jr.
Master-in-Equity, Horry County
James Stanton Cross, Jr.
Master-in-Equity, Orangeburg County
O. Davie Burgdorf
Master-in-Equity, Richland County
Joseph M. Strickland
Master-in-Equity, Spartanburg County
Roger L. Couch
Master-in-Equity, Sumter County
Linwood S. Evans, Jr.
Master-in-Equity, York County
John B. Grier, Sr.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Rep. F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice Chairman
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Rep. W. Douglas Smith
/s/Rep. Ralph W. Canty
/s/Harry M. Lightsey, Jr.
/s/Judge Curtis G. Shaw
/s/Richard S. Fisher
/s/Amy Johnson McLester
The following was received.
January 27, 1998
Sandra McKinney
Clerk of the House
Carolina Plaza
P.O. Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Sandy:
This is to inform you that the Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee held an election on January 20, 1998, and the following vacancies were filled:
I. The Honorable Curtis B. Inabinett was elected First Vice Chairman.
II. The Honorable Andre' Bauer was elected Second Vice Chairman.
Sincerely,
/s/Charles R. Sharpe
Received as information.
On motion of Rep. QUINN, with unanimous consent, the following were taken up for immediate consideration and adopted.
October 30, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
The Construction Industry Association, Carolinas AGC, respectfully requests the date of Tuesday, February 3, 1998, to host a reception for the Members of the General Assembly and their staffs, from 6:00 until 8:00 P.M. at the Koger Center for the Arts in Columbia.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Gennett
Executive Vice President
November 12, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
The South Carolina Hospital Association (SCHA) would like to formally invite the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives to a luncheon Wednesday, February 4, 1998, as part of our Hospital Day at the State House. The event will take place at the Holiday Inn Coliseum from 12:00-2:00 P.M.
If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me at SCHA.
We look forward to seeing you and your colleagues on February 4, 1998.
Sincerely,
Ken Shull, FACHE
President
August 12, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
The South Carolina Credit Union League would like to invite the members of the South Carolina House and Senate to a reception on Wednesday, February 4, 1998, at Seawell's on the State Fairgrounds. The reception will begin at 6:00 P.M. and end at 7:30 P.M.
We thank you for your kind assistance in this matter. Please contact Lisa Keeter or me should you have any questions. I look forward to seeing you soon.
Sincerely,
Steve Fowler
Sr. Vice President
October 29, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
Please be advised that the Members of the South Carolina Supreme Court, the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court of South Carolina and the Family Court of South Carolina, plan to invite the Constitutional Officers of the State of South Carolina, the members of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina and their staff to "An Old Fashioned Pig Pickin and Barbecue" to meet with the Judges of this State, informally and personally on Tuesday evening, February 10, 1998, at the National Guard Armory, 924 Stadium Road, Columbia, South Carolina from 6:00 P.M. until 8:00 P.M.
If you should need any additional information, please advise. Thanking you in advance for your assistance, I am
Sincerely,
Judge Paul M. Burch
May 5, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
Members of the House of Representatives of the South Carolina General Assembly are cordially invited to the tenth annual Drop-in for Legislators to be held on Thursday, February 5, 1988, and on Thursday, February 19, 1998, from 8:30 to 11:00 A.M. in Room 208 of the Blatt Building, which has been reserved for both dates. House members from the Midlands and Coastal regions of the State will be asked to attend on February 5, and House members from the Piedmont and Pee Dee regions of the State will be asked to attend February 19.
Co-hosting the event are the following disability organizations: The Arc of South Carolina - an organization on mental retardation, South Carolina Autism Society, Brain Injury Association of South Carolina, South Carolina Spinal Cord Injury Association, South Carolina Disabilities Research Commission, South Carolina Human Service Providers, Inc., Disability Action Center, and the Disability Coalition of South Carolina.
We hope each of the House members will take a few minutes to join us for coffee and rolls and to meet representatives from our organizations.
If you need further information, please call me at 787-0286. We look forward to the Representatives dropping in to meet us on February 5 and 19, 1998!
Sincerely,
Mrs. Jacquelyn Robey
Coordinator, Legislative Drop-in Planning Committee
July 16, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
On Wednesday, February 11, 1998, the South Carolina Association of Christian Schools will host its eighteenth Legislators' Breakfast. I would like to invite the members of the South Carolina House to attend. Attendance in past years has been great and we have appreciated the support of our Representatives. The breakfast will be at the Holiday Inn City Center on Assembly Street and will begin at 7:45 A.M. We promise to be through no later than 8:45 A.M.
If approved, individual invitations will be sent from our office at a later date. In addition, many of our member schools will be contacting their Representatives personally to invite them.
I also want to thank you for being there for us. Your work on our behalf is greatly appreciated.
Thank you also for your consideration in getting this request on the Calendar.
Sincerely in Christ,
Reece Yandle
Executive Director
February 18, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
Please allow this letter to serve as a confirmation of the conversation with Ms. Colette Murray Swann of your office. The South Carolina Association of Counties has issued an invitation to the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives and attachés to attend a Legislative Reception on Wednesday, February 11, 1998, from 6:00 to 7:30 P.M. at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Columbia. This reception is in conjunction with the Association's 11th Annual Mid-Year Conference for County Officials.
We would request that this event be placed on the House of Representatives Calendar for 1998. We look forward to having the members of the House with us on the evening of February 11.
Thanking you for your assistance and with best wishes , I am
Very truly yours,
Betty T. Roper, President
January 21, 1998
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
On behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving South Carolina, I would like to invite the entire South Carolina General Assembly to a luncheon presentation on February 17, 1998. The luncheon would begin upon adjournment and end at 2:00 P.M. The location will be Damon's Clubhouse on Senate St. in the Vista of downtown Columbia.
We are excited that our MADD National President, members of the South Carolina Highway Safety Coalition, and other special guests will join the General Assembly for what will be a fun and informative event.
We look forward to hosting the General Assembly and plan on mailing invitations as soon as we have confirmation of the approval of the event. Thank you for your help and please contact me at 748-7333 about the next step in this process.
Sincerely,
Elliott F. Epps
Assistant Public Policy Liaison
October 30, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
The S.C. Dental Association would like to invite the members of the S.C. House and their spouses or guests to a legislative reception to be held on Wednesday, February 18, 1998, from 1:00 P.M.-3:00 P.M.
The heavy hors d'oeuvres reception will be held at the Capital City Club immediately upon adjournment.
On behalf of the 1,340 members of the S.C. Dental Association, we look forward to having you as our honored guests.
Sincerely,
James H. (Hal) Zorn, Jr.
Executive Director
December 24, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
State Farm Insurance Company would like to invite all members of the House of Representatives to join us for lunch on Tuesday, February 24th, during our 1998 Legislative Day. We expect nearly 150 State Farm agents and employees to travel to Columbia to discuss timely insurance-related issues and legislation and to meet with their legislators.
Members are cordially invited to join us upon adjournment of the House for an informal lunch in the courtyard area between the Blatt and Gressette Buildings and an opportunity to meet with their constituents.
Thank you for your assistance, and please let us know if additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
Bob Trippel
Vice President-South Carolina
January 7, 1998
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
It is my distinct pleasure as the First Vice President of the South Carolina Probate Judges Association to invite you and all members of the House of Representatives to a Reception on Tuesday evening, February 24, 1998, at 6:00 P.M. at the Adam's Mark Columbia, 1200 Hampton Street, Columbia, South Carolina.
Speaking for all the Probate Judges, we look forward to seeing you on the 24th.
Sincerely,
Dale Moore Gable
March 24, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
The South Carolina Nursery Association would like to host a breakfast for the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, the South Carolina Senate, and the Constitutional Officers on Wednesday, February 25, 1998, from 8:00 A.M. until 9:30 A.M. The breakfast will be held in the Capital City Club in Columbia, S.C.
We will send an individual invitation to everyone invited.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Deborah Lichtenfelt, President
February 21, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
Confirm a telephone conversation on February 18th between Colette Murray Swann of your office and Jan Gerhart of our office, Wednesday, February 25, 1998, has been reserved for the Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina Legislative Appreciation Reception. All members and staff of the House of Representatives are invited to attend. The reception is scheduled to be held at the Adam's Mark Hotel in Columbia from 6:00-7:30 P.M.
As always, we appreciate Colette's able assistance in reserving this date.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please advise.
Sincerely,
Fred A. Cole
President and CEO
September 11, 1997
The Honorable Rick Quinn
Chairman, House Invitations Committee
503-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Rep. Quinn:
On behalf of the South Carolina Pharmacy Association, I would like to extend an invitation to the South Carolina House of Representatives, their spouses and staff upon adjournment on February 25, 1998, to join us at the Holiday Inn Coliseum for a reception to express our appreciation for your work in the South Carolina General Assembly.
Last year, the Lieutenant Governor and over 65 legislators, as well as 205 pharmacists and pharmacy students from across South Carolina, attended this event. Based on last year's participation, we expect even more pharmacists to use this occasion to visit with their state legislator.
Thank you for your consideration of this invitation. We look forward to your favorable reply.
Sincerely,
Peter Edwards, President
The following were received and referred to the appropriate committee for consideration.
Document No. 2264
Promulgated By Department of Education
Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Sections 59-5-60 and 56-31-210
Free Textbooks
Received By Speaker January 26, 1998
Referred to House Committee on Education and Public Works
120 Day Review Expiration Date May 26, 1998
Document No. 2263
Promulgated By Department of Education
Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Sections 56-23-20, 56-23-85, 59-39-320
Driver Training
Received By Speaker January 26, 1998
Referred to House Committee on Education and Public Works
120 Day Review Expiration Date May 26, 1998
Document No. 2259
Promulgated By Department of Education
Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Sections 59-5-60 and 56-31-360
Rental Textbooks (Repeal)
Received By Speaker January 22, 1998
Referred to House Committee on Education and Public Works
120 Day Review Expiration Date May 22, 1998
Rep. KIRSH from theYork Delegation, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 4402 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-870, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BIRD SANCTUARIES, SO AS TO ADD TO THE AREA IN YORK COUNTY.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
The following was introduced:
H. 4494 -- Reps. Wilkins, Allison, Altman, Askins, Bailey, Barfield, Barrett, Battle, Bauer, Baxley, Beck, Boan, Bowers, Breeland, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, T. Brown, Byrd, Campsen, Canty, Carnell, Cato, Cave, Chellis, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cooper, Cotty, Cromer, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Easterday, Edge, Felder, Fleming, Gamble, Gourdine, Govan, Hamilton, Harrell, A. Harris, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hawkins, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Howard, Inabinett, Jennings, Jordan, Keegan, Kelley, Kennedy, Kinon, Kirsh, Klauber, Knotts, Koon, Lanford, Law, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Mack, Maddox, Martin, Mason, McAbee, McCraw, McGee, McKay, McLeod, McMahand, McMaster, Meacham, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, Mullen, Neal, Neilson, Phillips, Pinckney, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Riser, Robinson, Rodgers, Sandifer, Scott, Seithel, Sharpe, Sheheen, Simrill, D. Smith, F. Smith, J. Smith, R. Smith, Spearman, Stille, Stoddard, Stuart, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Vaughn, Walker, Webb, Whatley, Whipper, Wilder, Wilkes, Witherspoon, Woodrum, Young and Young-Brickell: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND CONGRATULATE MR. BUCK MICKEL OF GREENVILLE, ONE OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S MOST DISTINGUISHED BUSINESS AND CIVIC LEADERS, FOR HIS FIFTY YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE FLUOR CORPORATION AND ITS PREDECESSOR COMPANIES, INCLUDING DANIEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, UPON HIS RETIREMENT FROM THE FLUOR BOARD.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 4495 -- Reps. Kelley, Keegan, Edge, Limehouse, Whatley, T. Brown, Mason, Barfield, Miller, Sheheen and Witherspoon: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM THROUGH FEBRUARY
1, 1999, ON ISSUING NEW LICENSES TO AN OUTPATIENT METHADONE TREATMENT FACILITY.
The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.
On motion of Rep. DELLENEY, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4496 -- Reps. Delleney, D. Smith and Canty: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1998, AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JULY 31, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEAT 9, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, CREATED IN THE 1997-98 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2004; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JULY 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2001; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 4, CREATED IN THE 1997-98 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2004; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, CREATED IN THE 1997-98 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2004; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, CREATED IN THE 1997-98 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2004; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 4, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2001; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2001; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 6, CREATED IN THE 1997-98 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2004; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2001; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 4, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 6, CREATED IN THE 1997-98 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2004; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2001; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; AND TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A JUDGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION, SEAT 5, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the House of Representatives and the Senate shall meet in joint assembly in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, February 18, 1998, at 12:00 noon to elect a successor to the Honorable James E. Moore, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, whose term expires July 31, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Ralph K. Anderson, Jr., Judge of the Court of Appeals, Seat 9, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to fill the office of Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, created in the 1997-98 Appropriations Act, whose term expires June 30, 2004; to elect a successor to the Honorable Rodney A. Peeples, Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Paul M. Burch, Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Don S. Rushing, Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Tom J. Ervin, Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2001; to elect a successor to the Honorable Henry F. Floyd, Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to fill the office of Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4, created in the 1997-98 Appropriations Act, whose term expires June 30, 2004; to elect a successor to the Honorable Sidney T. Floyd, Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable John C. Hayes III, Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to fill the office of Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, created in the 1997-98 Appropriations Act, whose term expires June 30, 2004; to elect a successor to the Honorable Alvin C. Biggs, Judge of the Family Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to fill the office of Judge of the Family Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, created in the 1997-98 Appropriations Act, whose term expires June 30, 2004; to elect a successor to the Honorable Peter R. Nuessle, Judge of the Family Court for the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Ruben L. Gray, Judge of the Family Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Roger E. Henderson, Judge of the Family Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable H. Bruce Williams, Judge of the Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Donna S. Strom, Judge of the Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Thomas E. Foster, Judge of the Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 2001; to elect a successor to the Honorable Stuart H. Hall, Judge of the Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable John M. Rucker, Judge of the Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable William K. Charles, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 2001; to elect a successor to the Honorable F.P. Segars-Andrews, Judge of the Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Judy Cone Bridges, Judge of the Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to fill the office of Judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 6, created in the 1997-98 Appropriations Act, whose term expires June 30, 2004; to elect a successor to the Honorable Franklin McClain, Judge of the Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 2001; to elect a successor to the Honorable Robert H. Cureton, Judge of the Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable W. Frank Rogers, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Wylie H. Caldwell, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Amy C. Sutherland, Judge of the Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Alvin D. Johnson, Judge of the Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to fill the office of Judge of the Family Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 6, created in the 1997-98 Appropriations Act, whose term expires June 30, 2004; to elect a successor to the Honorable Jane Dowling Fender, Judge of the Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable Donald A. Fanning, Judge of the Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires June 30, 2001; to elect a successor to the Honorable Lisa A. Kinon, Judge of the Family Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose term expires June 30, 1998; to elect a successor to the Honorable John S. Flynn, Judge of the Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1, whose term expires June 30, 1998; and to elect a successor to the Honorable Ray N. Stevens, Judge of the Administrative Law Division, Seat 5, whose term expires June 30, 1998.
Be it further resolved that all nominations must be made by the Chairman of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission and that no further nominating or seconding speeches may be made by members of the General Assembly on behalf of any candidate.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
On motion of Rep. FELDER, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4497 -- Reps. Felder, Altman, Barfield, Barrett, Battle, Bauer, Boan, Bowers, Breeland, G. Brown, H. Brown, Campsen, Carnell, Cato, Chellis, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Fleming, Gamble, Gourdine, Harrell, A. Harris, Harrison, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Inabinett, Jennings, Jordan, Klauber, Law, Leach, Limehouse, Lloyd, Mack, Maddox, Martin, McGee, McMahand, Meacham, Moody-Lawrence, Neal, Neilson, Phillips, Pinckney, Rodgers, Sandifer, Simrill, D. Smith, Stille, Trotter, Webb, Whatley, and Woodrum: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION DECLARING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1998, AS "HOSPITAL DAY".
Whereas, there are over one hundred health care facilities in this State; and
Whereas, over fifty thousand people are employed by hospitals in South Carolina; and
Whereas, in addition, there are thousands of hospital trustees, volunteers, and medical personnel who care about the future of hospitals and health care in this State; and
Whereas, it is widely considered that health care is one of the crucial issues facing our State; and
Whereas, by declaring a "Hospital Day", it will give hospital administrators and employees around the State an opportunity to visit the State House and meet with members of their respective legislative delegations. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the members of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, declare Wednesday, February 4, 1998, as "Hospital Day".
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the South Carolina Hospital Association.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was taken up for immediate consideration:
S. 902 -- Senators Drummond and J. Verne Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO THANK THE MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE STATE HOUSE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR TIRELESS EFFORTS AND DEDICATION TO THE COMPLETION OF THE STATE HOUSE RENOVATION PROJECT, TO AUTHORIZE A SPECIAL CEREMONY TO COMMEMORATE THE OPENING OF THE NEWLY RENOVATED STATE HOUSE, AND TO AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THAT THE STATE HOUSE BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE FROM THE DATE OF ITS COMPLETION UNTIL LABOR DAY.
Amend title to conform
Whereas, the entire General Assembly owes a debt of gratitude and our hearty congratulations to each and every member of the State House Committee for their dedication and hard work in the management of the State House Renovation Project, and;
Whereas, the renovated facility will be a showcase of the historical beauty of our original building skillfully blended with the latest available architectural, engineering, and systems technology, and;
Whereas, one of the primary purposes of this incredible undertaking is to preserve one of the finest historic structures in America and at the same time provide a safe and pleasant environment for our citizens and other visitors to our seat of government, and;
Whereas, it is most fitting that the people's building be opened for the benefit of and first made available to the people of this State to see and appreciate and enjoy the beauty of their building;
Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the State House Committee shall devise and report to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate a plan for an opening ceremony for the dedication of the newly renovated State House to be administered by the Clerk of the House, the Clerk of the Senate, and the Chief of Staff of the Budget and Control Board, and be it further resolved;
That subsequent to the dedication, the State House shall remain open seven days a week until Labor Day for visitation and tours during such times and such conditions as the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall direct, and be it further resolved;
That the Budget and Control Board is directed to provide such custodial and other services as shall be necessary to keep the facility in good order and to accommodate the plans established by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Chairman of the State House Committee.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 953 -- Senator Short: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND RECOGNIZE DR. HALSTED MCCLURE STONE, SR., FOR HIS FORTY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTY OF CHESTER AND THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO CONGRATULATE DOCTOR STONE FOR HIS PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS A PHYSICIAN AND FOR THE LEADERSHIP HE PROVIDES THROUGH HIS CONTINUING PUBLIC SERVICE AND COMMITMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF CHESTER COUNTY.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 4498 -- Rep. Cromer: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 6, TITLE 23, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY, BY ADDING ARTICLE 12 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' BILL OF RIGHTS.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 4499 -- Rep. Boan: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-112-75 SO AS TO ALLOW IN-STATE TUITION RATES FOR PERSONS RESIDING IN NORTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA COUNTIES CONTIGUOUS TO THIS STATE WHO ENROLL IN TECHNICAL AND PUBLIC TWO-YEAR COLLEGES LOCATED IN COUNTIES IN THIS STATE CONTIGUOUS TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NEIGHBORING STATES IF PUBLIC COLLEGES IN THOSE GEORGIA AND NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES HAVE RECIPROCAL TUITION AGREEMENTS WITH THE AFFECTED SOUTH CAROLINA INSTITUTIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 59-112-20, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF SOUTH CAROLINA DOMICILE FOR PURPOSES OF IN-STATE TUITION, SO AS TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF IN-STATE TUITION FOR INDEPENDENT NONRESIDENTS EMPLOYED FULL-TIME IN THIS STATE AND FOREIGN NATIONALS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS WHEN THE FOREIGN NATIONAL IS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH HAS ASSIGNED THE FOREIGN NATIONAL TO FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT IN OPERATION MANAGED BY THE COMPANY IN THIS STATE WHILE THE FOREIGN NATIONAL REMAINS IN FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT PURSUANT TO THE ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENT.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H. 4500 -- Rep. Boan: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 53, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 18 SO AS TO CODIFY A PREVIOUSLY UNCODIFIED ACT ESTABLISHING THE WILLIAMSBURG TECHNICAL, VOCATIONAL AND ADULT EDUCATION CENTER COMMISSION AND IN THE CODIFIED ACT RENAMING THE GOVERNING BOARD AS THE WILLIAMSBURG TECHNICAL COLLEGE COMMISSION AND PROVIDING THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE FORMER COMMISSION BOARD ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTIONS 59-53-210, 59-53-240, 59-53-410, 59-53-710, 59-53-910, AND 59-53-1410, ALL RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNING BODIES OF VARIOUS OF THE STATE'S TECHNICAL COLLEGES, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAMES OF THE GOVERNING BODIES TO REFLECT THE REVISED NAMES OF THE INSTITUTIONS ADMINISTERED BY THESE BOARDS AND TO DELETE OBSOLETE PROVISIONS AND MAKE GRAMMATICAL CHANGES, AND TO REPEAL ACT 58 OF 1969, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WILLIAMSBURG TECHNICAL, VOCATIONAL AND ADULT EDUCATION CENTER COMMISSION.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.
H. 4501 -- Rep. Boan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 9-17-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OPTIONAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLICLY-SUPPORTED FOUR-YEAR AND POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO EXTEND ELIGIBILITY FOR THIS PROGRAM TO FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION OF TECHNICAL COLLEGES.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H. 4502 -- Reps. Kelly, Keegan, Wilkins, Knotts, Sandifer, Meacham, Jordan, Hinson, Robinson, Stuart, Rice, Haskins, Riser, Barrett, Moody-Lawrence, Mullen, Rodgers and Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-160, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PERSON OR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES FOR WHICH A CERTIFICATE OF NEED IS REQUIRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, SO AS TO REQUIRE SUCH A CERTIFICATE FOR AN OUTPATIENT METHADONE TREATMENT FACILITY.
Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.
H. 4503 -- Rep. Felder: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 39, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TRADE AND COMMERCE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 54, SO AS TO ENACT THE "ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY WARRANTY ACT" TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ENFORCEMENT OF A WARRANTY FOR THESE DEVICES.
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
H. 4504 -- Reps. Rice and Loftis: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-29 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO HUNT MIGRATORY WATERFOWL ON SALUDA LAKE IN GREENVILLE AND PICKENS COUNTIES WITHIN TWO HUNDRED YARDS OF A DWELLING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE OWNER AND OCCUPANT, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.
H. 4505 -- Reps. Gamble, Boan, Haskins, Klauber, Knotts, Koon, Riser, and Stuart: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-4090, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LIMITATIONS ON LENGTHS AND LOADS OF CERTAIN POLE TRAILERS, LONGWOOD TRAILERS, AND SELF-PROPELLED POLE CARRIERS, SO AS TO INCLUDE FLAT-BED TRAILERS WITHIN CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO LENGTH OF VEHICLES AND LOADS, TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MATERIALS WHICH EXEMPT TRAILERS MAY TRANSPORT, AND TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO A REFERENCE.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.
H. 4506 -- Rep. Meacham: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-2320, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF DEALER AND WHOLESALER LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE DEALER AND A MOTOR HOME DEALER MAY BE ISSUED ONE PLATE FOR THE FIRST FIVE VEHICLES SOLD DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.
H. 4507 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 11, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF CONTRACTORS AS A PROFESSION, BY ADDING SECTION 40-11-165 SO AS TO REQUIRE A PERSON WHO IS OR HAS BEEN LICENSED UNDER CHAPTER 40 WHO LEAVES SOUTH CAROLINA WITH UNPAID DEBTS AND SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNS TO THE STATE SEEKING TO BECOME LICENSED IN THIS STATE AGAIN OR TO DO BUSINESS AGAIN IN SOUTH CAROLINA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF A STILL-VALID LICENSE TO FILE A STATEMENT LISTING CERTAIN OUTSTANDING DEBTS AND BANKRUPTCIES.
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
H. 4508 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-370, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR LICENSING UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT, SO AS TO AFFORD THE LICENSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW COMPLIANCE BEFORE INSTITUTION OF A PROCEEDING TO REVOKE, SUSPEND, ANNUL, OR WITHDRAW A LICENSE AND TO REQUIRE A GOOD FAITH FINDING OF EMERGENCY BEFORE SUMMARY SUSPENSION OF A LICENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 15-77-300, RELATING TO ATTORNEY'S FEES TAXED AGAINST A STATE AGENCY, SO AS TO ALLOW THE TAXING OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AGAINST A STATE LICENSING BOARD WHICH SUMMARILY SUSPENDS A LICENSE WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 1-23-370 PROVIDED ABOVE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-1-100, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO EQUITABLE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO LICENSING BOARDS, SO AS TO REQUIRE A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT A VIOLATION IS OCCURRING OR MAY OCCUR BEFORE A BOARD SEEKS AN EQUITABLE REMEDY AND TO CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM WRONGFUL EQUITABLE RELIEF.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 4509 -- Reps. Davenport and Lee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-6-165 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE DISBURSAL OF ANY STATE FUNDS, INCLUDING STATE MEDICAID FUNDS, TO A HOSPITAL OR HEALTH CARE FACILITY PROVIDING EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IF THE HOSPITAL OR HEALTH CARE FACILITY REFUSES TO PROVIDE TREATMENT TO A PERSON IN NEED OF MEDICAL CARE FOR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL CONDITION.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H. 4510 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-6-158 SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT IF AN AUCTIONEER ADDS A BUYER'S PREMIUM TO THE COST OF AN ITEM AUCTIONED, NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN, TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
H. 4511 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-104-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PALMETTO FELLOWS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CLASS STANDING OR RANK SHALL NOT BE A CRITERIA IN AWARDING PALMETTO FELLOWS SCHOLARSHIPS.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H. 4512 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 43-1-75 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO HIRE AND FIRE ATTORNEYS WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING AT THE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT ALL DEPARTMENT ATTORNEYS ARE UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.
H. 4513 -- Reps. Carnell, Klauber, and McAbee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 27-47-130, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION AND SERVICE OF PROCESS WITH RESPECT TO A CLAIM ARISING FROM TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO THE MANUFACTURED HOME PARK TENANCY ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURTS AND MAGISTRATE COURTS OF THIS STATE SHALL EXERCISE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY CLAIM ARISING FROM A TRANSACTION TO WHICH THE SOUTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURED HOME PARK TENANCY ACT APPLIES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF AGENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR OUT-OF-STATE LANDLORDS.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
S. 924 -- Senators Matthews and Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 526 OF 1996, RELATING TO THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF ORANGEBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE MET BEFORE SCHOOLS MAY BE CLOSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF A CONSOLIDATED DISTRICT.
On motion of Rep. SHARPE, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.
Allison Barfield Barrett Battle Bauer Baxley Beck Boan Bowers Breeland Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Byrd Campsen Canty Carnell Cato Cave Chellis Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Cromer Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Edge Felder Fleming Gamble Gourdine Govan Hamilton Harrell Harris Harrison Harvin Haskins Hawkins Hines, J. Hines, M. Hinson Howard Inabinett Jennings Jordan Keegan Kelley Kennedy Kinon Kirsh Knotts Koon Lanford Law Leach Lee Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Loftis Mack Maddox Martin Mason McCraw McGee McKay McLeod McMahand McMaster Meacham Miller Moody-Lawrence Mullen Neilson Phillips Pinckney Quinn Rhoad Rice Riser Robinson Rodgers Sandifer Scott Seithel Sharpe Sheheen Simrill Smith, D. Smith, F. Smith, J. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stuart Townsend Tripp Trotter Vaughn Walker Webb Whatley Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Woodrum Young
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Tuesday, January 27.
Eugene C. Stoddard Annette Young-Brickell Bill Cotty John G. Altman III Harry R. Askins George H. Bailey Joseph H. Neal Theodore A. Brown Jackson S. Whipper William D. Witherspoon
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
The SPEAKER granted Rep. McABEE a leave of absence for the week due to illness.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. WITHERSPOON a temporary leave of absence.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. KLAUBER a leave of absence for the day.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. ALTMAN a temporary leave of absence due to traffic problems.
Rep. RHOAD signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call of the House and was present for the Session on Wednesday, January 14.
Announcement was made that Dr. March E. Seabrook of Columbia is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
"5.2 Every bill before presentation shall have its title endorsed; every report, its title at length; every petition, memorial, or other paper, its prayer or substance; and, in every instance, the name of the member presenting any paper shall be endorsed and the papers shall be presented by the member to the Speaker at the desk. After a bill or resolution has been presented and given first reading, no further names of co-sponsors may be added. A member may add his name to a bill or resolution or a co-sponsor of a bill or resolution may remove his name at any time prior to the bill or resolution receiving passage on second reading. The member or co-sponsor shall notify the Clerk of the House in writing of his desire to have his name added or removed from the bill or resolution. The Clerk of the House shall print the member's or co-sponsor's written notification in the House Journal. The removal or addition of a name does not apply to a bill or resolution sponsored by a committee."
BILL NUMBER: H. 4399
DATE REMOVE:
January 27, 1998 Kenneth Kennedy
BILL NUMBER: H. 3617
DATE ADD:
January 27, 1998 Walton J. McLeod
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3248 -- Reps. F. Smith, McMahand, Whipper, Miller, Lee, Hamilton, M. Hines, Leach, Cato, Wilkins and Mack: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-7-375 SO AS TO REQUIRE A HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME, OR OTHER LICENSED FACILITY TO INCLUDE AND MAINTAIN INCIDENCE AND OCCURRENCE REPORTS PERTAINING TO PATIENTS IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD.
Rep. F. SMITH explained the Bill.
Rep. SEITHEL objected to the Bill.
Rep. F. SMITH continued speaking.
Rep. WILDER moved to recommit the Bill.
Rep. SHEHEEN demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Barfield Barrett Battle Beck Bowers Brown, H. Brown, J. Byrd Carnell Cato Chellis Cooper Dantzler Davenport Delleney Felder Harvin Hinson Jordan Keegan Kirsh Law Mason McCraw McGee McKay Quinn Rhoad Robinson Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Smith, R. Townsend Tripp Trotter Vaughn Walker Webb Whatley Wilder Woodrum
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Bauer Baxley Breeland Brown, G. Campsen Canty Cave Clyburn Cotty Cromer Easterday Edge Fleming Gamble Govan Hamilton Harrell Harris Harrison Haskins Hawkins Hines, J. Hines, M. Howard Inabinett Jennings Kelley Kennedy Kinon Knotts Koon Lanford Leach Lee Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Loftis Mack Maddox Martin McLeod McMahand McMaster Meacham Moody-Lawrence Mullen Neilson Phillips Pinckney Rice Riser Rodgers Scott Sheheen Simrill Smith, D. Smith, F. Smith, J. Spearman Stille Stoddard Stuart Wilkes Wilkins Young-Brickell
So, the House refused to recommit the Bill.
Reps. WILDER, SANDIFER, TROTTER, TRIPP, WHATLEY, RHOAD, LITTLEJOHN and LOFTIS objected to the Bill.
Reps. CARNELL, EASTERDAY, F. SMITH, McMAHAND, KIRSH, SCOTT and CLYBURN requested debate on the Bill.
Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of amendments, cloture having been ordered.
H. 4399 -- Reps. Wilkins, Townsend, Harrell, Haskins, Allison, J. Hines, Hinson, D. Smith, R. Smith, Stuart, Walker, Limehouse, Maddox, Spearman, Vaughn, G. Brown, Battle, Whatley, Barfield, Barrett, Young-Brickell, Bailey, Meacham, Neilson, Rice, Bauer, McCraw, Martin, Chellis, Rodgers, Delleney, Littlejohn, Stille, Stoddard, Cato, J. Brown, Law, Cotty, Witherspoon, Kinon, Knotts, Rhoad, Riser, Mason, Dantzler, Edge, McKay, Sandifer, Davenport, McGee, Gamble, McMaster, Felder, Byrd, Lanford, Miller, Phillips, Koon, McMahand, Kirsh, Quinn, Wilkes, Cromer, Cooper, Wilder, Harvin, Harrison, H. Brown, Sharpe, Woodrum, Beck and T. Brown: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EDUCATION, BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS FOR SCHOOLS (PASS) ACT" INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO ESTABLISH A PASS COMMISSION AND PROVIDE FOR ITS FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES, TO REQUIRE THE ADOPTION OF CERTAIN STATE EDUCATION STANDARDS BY THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND CREATE AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM TO MONITOR THE ATTAINMENT OF THESE STANDARDS, TO PROVIDE FOR ANNUAL REPORT CARDS, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND AWARDS FOR SCHOOLS, TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR POORLY PERFORMING SCHOOLS, AND TO PROVIDE A STATE-FUNDED PROGRAM OF INCENTIVES FOR PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS AND FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT; AND TO REPEAL CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE 59 RELATING TO MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Reps. GOVAN and CAVE proposed the following Amendment No. 39 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\JIC\5165SD.98).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 59-8-1310 by inserting immediately before /. Principals/ on line 32 of page 15 the following:
/Principals and teachers who are selected must have demonstrated the ability of maximizing student achievement in under performing subgroups of students disaggregated into free and reduced lunch students./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. GOVAN explained the amendment.
Rep. GOVAN moved to adjourn debate upon the amendment, which was adopted.
Reps. MOODY-LAWRENCE, SCOTT and HOWARD proposed the following Amendment No. 40 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\DKA\4752MM.98), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 59-8-310(A)(4), Article 3, SECTION 1, page 4, by inserting after /community/ on line 20 /, to include parents of children who are enrolled in public schools from both rural and urban communities,/.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE explained the amendment.
Reps. HOWARD and SCOTT spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN moved to table the amendment.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Altman Barfield Barrett Bauer Beck Boan Brown, H. Campsen Carnell Cato Chellis Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Easterday Edge Felder Fleming Hamilton Harrell Harrison Haskins Hawkins Hinson Jordan Keegan Kirsh Knotts Koon Law Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Maddox Martin Mason McCraw McGee McKay McMaster Mullen Phillips Quinn Rice Riser Robinson Rodgers Sandifer Seithel Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Stille Stuart Townsend Tripp Vaughn Walker Whatley Wilder Wilkins Woodrum Young Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey Battle Baxley Bowers Breeland Brown, G. Brown, J. Byrd Canty Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Davenport Delleney Gamble Gourdine Govan Harris Harvin Hines, J. Hines, M. Howard Inabinett Jennings Kennedy Kinon Lanford Lee Lloyd Mack McLeod McMahand Meacham Miller Moody-Lawrence Neilson Pinckney Rhoad Scott Sheheen Smith, J. Spearman Stoddard Trotter Webb Wilkes
So, the amendment was tabled.
Reps. MOODY-LAWRENCE, SCOTT and HOWARD proposed the following Amendment No. 41 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\DKA\4753MM.98), which was ruled out of order.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 59-8-700(A), Article 7, SECTION 1, page 10, line 14, by deleting /its/ and inserting / to establish the size of a school district. The State Board of Education shall develop the/.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE explained the amendment.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN raised a Point of Order that Amendment No. 41 was out of order in that it was not germane to the Bill.
Rep. SCOTT argued contra.
SPEAKER WILKINS sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.
Reps. D. SMITH, HASKINS, ROBINSON, TOWNSEND and HARRELL proposed the following Amendment No. 42 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\JIC\5171SD.98), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding immediately after Section 59-8-520:
/Section 59-8-525. Any new social studies standards required to be developed and adopted by the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education, must be developed and adopted upon the advice and consent of the PASS Commission./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. D. SMITH moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
Rep. NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 43 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\GJK\21077HTC.98).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 59-8-580, as contained in SECTION 1, page 9, line 38, by striking /1999-2000/ and inserting /2002-2003/.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. SCOTT moved to adjourn debate upon the amendment, which was adopted.
Rep. NEAL proposed the following Amendment No. 44 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\GJK\21078HTC.98).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 16, by adding a new SECTION appropriately numbered to read:
/SECTION ____. Effective beginning not later than school year 2000-2001, the General Assembly shall provide for a revised method of public school finance that uses available state, federal, and local funds to equalize K-12 public education spending on a statewide per pupil basis./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. SCOTT moved to adjourn debate upon the amendment, which was adopted.
Rep. HARRELL moved to reconsider the vote whereby Amendment No. 34 was tabled and the motion was noted.
Rep. LOFTIS proposed the following Amendment No. 45 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\JIC\5173CM.98), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 1, page 4399-10, by striking lines 16 through 27 and inserting:
/Section 59-8-560. The State Board of Education, through the commission, is directed to select a norm referenced test to provide comparisons of South Carolina students' achievement in relation to other students in the United States. The test must be administered to grades 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 and testing will test all students to give an accurate portrayal of student achievement in relation to other states. The norm referenced test must be administered beginning in the 1998-99 school year. Student performance data from national and international assessments, as available and as defined by the commission, must be used to monitor the rigor of the state standards./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. LOFTIS explained the amendment.
Rep. HARRELL spoke against the amendment and moved to table the amendment.
Rep. LOFTIS demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.
The amendment was then tabled by a division vote of 69 to 22.
Rep. DAVENPORT proposed the following Amendment No. 46 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\GJK\21067SD.98), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 59-8-1110 by adding at the end of item (1) on line 5, page 14: /. The commission in consultation with the State Department of Education shall develop the criteria for the identification of persons to serve as members of a caretaker team;/
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. DAVENPORT explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Rep. DAVENPORT proposed the following Amendment No. 47 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\PT\1624MM.98), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 59-8-1110(1), Article 12, SECTION 1, page 13, line 39, by inserting immediately after /of/, /an equal number of parents from the district and/
Amend the bill further, Section 59-8-1110(1), Article 12, SECTION 1, page 14, line 5, by inserting immediately after /staff/, /the parent members of the caretaker team must be appointed pursuant to recommendations of the district's School Improvement Council so that a cross-section of each district is represented on the team/.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. DAVENPORT explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Rep. KENNEDY proposed the following Amendment No. 48 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\JIC\5172CM.98), which was ruled out of order.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION ___. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section __________. If a student is suspended twice in a school year, he may not be readmitted without a parent-principal conference. If the student is suspended subsequent to the conference, the parents will be required to successfully complete a parenting class./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. KENNEDY explained the amendment.
Rep. LITTLEJOHN raised a Point of Order that Amendment No. 48 was out of order in that it was not germane to the Bill.
Rep. KENNEDY argued contra.
SPEAKER WILKINS sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.
Rep. BOAN proposed the following Amendment No. 49 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\PT\1623CM.98).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 1, page 5, Section 59-8-330, by inserting after the /./ on line 37, /The executive director, at a minimum, must possess a Masters degree./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. HARRELL moved to adjourn debate upon the amendment, which was adopted.
Rep. DAVENPORT proposed the following Amendment No. 51 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\PT\1625MM.98), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 59-8-500, Article 5, SECTION 1, page 7, by inserting a new paragraph at line 31 to read:
/The standards adopted as of the effective date of this act may not be changed without official action by the General Assembly/
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. DAVENPORT explained the amendment.
Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the amendment.
Rep. TRIPP demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Bailey Barfield Barrett Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Byrd Carnell Cave Chellis Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Dantzler Edge Gourdine Govan Harrell Harrison Harvin Hawkins Hines, J. Hines, M. Hinson Howard Inabinett Keegan Kelley Kennedy Kirsh Law Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Martin McCraw McGee McKay McMahand McMaster Meacham Moody-Lawrence Mullen Neal Phillips Rhoad Riser Rodgers Sandifer Scott Seithel Simrill Smith, D. Smith, F. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stuart Townsend Walker Whatley Wilkes Wilkins Woodrum Young Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Askins Battle Bauer Baxley Beck Bowers Breeland Campsen Canty Cato Cooper Cotty Davenport Delleney Easterday Fleming Gamble Hamilton Harris Haskins Jennings Jordan Kinon Knotts Koon Lanford Leach Lee Loftis Mack Mason McLeod Miller Neilson Rice Robinson Sheheen Smith, J. Tripp Trotter Vaughn Webb Wilder
So, the amendment was tabled.
Rep. SPEARMAN proposed the following Amendment No. 52 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\GJK\21082SD.98), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 59-8-730, page 11, by adding at the end of this section: /In addition, if a school has made two written attempts to contact the parents or guardians of a student with academic problems for the purpose of improving the student's academic performance and no response was received from these parents or guardians, the scores of such students shall not be used to determine the absolute and the improvement grade of the school./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. SPEARMAN explained the amendment.
Rep. TOWNSEND spoke against the amendment and moved to table the amendment.
Rep. KENNEDY demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Altman Barfield Barrett Beck Brown, H. Campsen Canty Carnell Chellis Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Easterday Edge Gourdine Govan Hamilton Harrell Harrison Haskins Hawkins Hinson Howard Inabinett Jordan Keegan Kelley Kirsh Law Leach Lee Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Loftis Maddox Martin McGee McKay McMahand McMaster Meacham Moody-Lawrence Mullen Quinn Rhoad Rice Riser Sandifer Scott Simrill Smith, D. Smith, F. Smith, R. Stille Stuart Townsend Trotter Walker Wilkins Woodrum Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Askins Battle Bauer Baxley Boan Bowers Breeland Brown, G. Byrd Cato Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Davenport Delleney Fleming Gamble Harris Harvin Hines, J. Hines, M. Jennings Kennedy Kinon Knotts Koon Lanford Mack McCraw McLeod Miller Neilson Phillips Robinson Rodgers Seithel Sheheen Smith, J. Spearman Tripp Vaughn Webb Whatley Wilder Young
So, the amendment was tabled.
Reps. D. SMITH, HARRELL, HASKINS, ROBINSON and TOWNSEND proposed the following Amendment No. 53 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\JIC\5176SD.98), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding immediately after Section 59-8-520:
/Section 59-8-525. Any new standards required to be developed and adopted by the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education, must be developed and adopted upon the advice and consent of the PASS Commission./
Amend title to conform.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. D. SMITH explained the amendment.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE moved to table the amendment.
Rep. SCOTT demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Askins Battle Boan Breeland Brown, J. Brown, T. Canty Carnell Cave Cobb-Hunter Gourdine Govan Hines, J. Hines, M. Inabinett Kennedy Kirsh Lee Lloyd Mack McCraw McLeod Miller Moody-Lawrence Neal Pinckney Scott Sheheen Smith, J. Spearman Stuart
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Altman Bailey Barfield Barrett Bauer Baxley Beck Bowers Brown, H. Campsen Cato Chellis Cotty Cromer Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Edge Fleming Gamble Hamilton Harrell Harris Harvin Haskins Hawkins Hinson Jennings Jordan Keegan Kelley Kinon Koon Lanford Law Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Maddox Mason McGee McKay McMaster Meacham Mullen Neilson Phillips Rhoad Rice Riser Robinson Rodgers Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Simrill Smith, D. Smith, F. Smith, R. Stille Stoddard Townsend Tripp Trotter Vaughn Walker Webb Whatley Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Woodrum Young Young-Brickell
So, the House refused to table the amendment.
The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment, which was agreed to.
I was on the phone with a constituent, discussing another amendment to this Bill when the roll call on Amendment #53 was taken. Had I been able to record my vote, it would have been in favor of this amendment.
Rep. DANIEL T. COOPER
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE proposed the following Amendment No. 54 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\GJK\21047SD.98), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 59-8-310(A) by striking item (6) which begins on line 29, page 4, and inserting:
/(6) two members shall represent the Colleges of Education from state-supported or independent institutions of higher learning to be appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of the Chairman of the Council of College Presidents and the Independent Colleges and Universities, Inc. This position on the commission shall be rotated every four years between the two above entities, and no public or private institution may be represented a second or subsequent time until all other institutions have been so represented;/
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE explained the amendment.
Rep. WALKER moved to table the amendment.
Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Altman Askins Bailey Barfield Barrett Battle Bauer Baxley Beck Boan Brown, H. Campsen Carnell Cato Chellis Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Edge Fleming Gamble Hamilton Harrell Harris Harrison Haskins Hawkins Hinson Jordan Keegan Kelley Kinon Kirsh Knotts Koon Law Leach Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Maddox Mason McCraw McGee McKay McLeod McMaster Meacham Miller Mullen Neilson Phillips Quinn Rhoad Rice Riser Robinson Rodgers Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Sheheen Simrill Smith, F. Smith, J. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stoddard Stuart Townsend Tripp Trotter Vaughn Walker Webb Whatley Wilder Wilkins Woodrum Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bowers Breeland Brown, G. Brown, T. Cave Cobb-Hunter Gourdine Govan Harvin Hines, M. Inabinett Kennedy Lee Lloyd Mack McMahand Moody-Lawrence Neal Pinckney Scott
So, the amendment was tabled.
Rep. TRIPP proposed the following Amendment No. 55 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\JIC\5167CM.98), which was ruled out of order.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION ___. A statewide nonbinding referendum must be held at the same time as the 1998 general election to ascertain the wishes of the qualified electors of this State as to whether the State Department of Education should be abolished and devolving its duties including those contained in the South Carolina Performance and Accountability Standards for Schools Act upon other entities as approved by the general assembly. The State Election Commission shall place the question contained in Section 2 on the general election ballot in November 1998. The state election laws shall apply to this referendum, mutatis mutandis. The State Board of Canvassers shall certify the results of the referendum to the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate.
SECTION 2. The question put before the qualified electors at the 1998 referendum must read as follows:
"Do you favor abolishing the State Department of Education and devolving its duties including those duties contained in the South Carolina Performance and Accountability Standards for Schools Act upon other entities as approved by the General Assembly?
Those voting in favor of the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'Yes', and those voting against the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'No'."/
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. TRIPP explained the amendment.
Rep. SHARPE raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 55 was out of order in that it was not germane to the Bill.
Rep. TRIPP argued contra.
SPEAKER WILKINS sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.
Rep. TRIPP proposed the following Amendment No. 56 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\JIC\5166CM.98), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION ___. Any standards adopted under this act must be approved by the General Assembly by the same procedure contained in the Administrative Procedures Act./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. TRIPP explained the amendment.
Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the amendment.
Rep. TRIPP demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Askins Bailey Barfield Barrett Bauer Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Carnell Chellis Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cromer Dantzler Edge Fleming Gamble Harrell Harris Harvin Hawkins Hines, J. Hines, M. Hinson Inabinett Keegan Kelley Kennedy Kirsh Knotts Law Littlejohn Lloyd Mack Maddox Martin McCraw McGee McKay McLeod McMaster Moody-Lawrence Mullen Neal Neilson Phillips Rhoad Riser Rodgers Scott Seithel Sharpe Smith, D. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stuart Townsend Trotter Walker Webb Wilder Wilkins Woodrum Young Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Baxley Beck Bowers Brown, T. Campsen Canty Cato Cave Cooper Cotty Davenport Delleney Easterday Gourdine Govan Hamilton Haskins Jordan Koon Lanford Leach Lee Limehouse Loftis Meacham Miller Pinckney Quinn Rice Robinson Sandifer Sheheen Simrill Tripp Vaughn Whatley
So, the amendment was tabled.
Rep. TRIPP proposed the following Amendment No. 57 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\JIC\5164CM.98), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION ___. Any standards adopted under this act must be approved by the General Assembly./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. TRIPP explained the amendment.
Rep. HARRELL moved to table the amendment.
Rep. TRIPP demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Askins Bailey Barfield Barrett Bauer Boan Breeland Brown, H. Brown, J. Canty Carnell Chellis Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cromer Dantzler Edge Fleming Gourdine Govan Harrell Harrison Hawkins Hines, J. Hines, M. Hinson Howard Inabinett Keegan Kelley Kinon Kirsh Koon Lanford Law Lee Littlejohn Lloyd Mack Maddox Martin McCraw McGee McLeod McMahand McMaster Miller Moody-Lawrence Mullen Neal Phillips Rhoad Riser Rodgers Sandifer Seithel Sheheen Simrill Smith, D. Smith, F. Smith, J. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stuart Townsend Trotter Walker Webb Wilder Wilkins Woodrum Young Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Baxley Beck Bowers Brown, T. Campsen Cato Cave Cotty Davenport Delleney Easterday Gamble Hamilton Harris Harvin Haskins Jennings Leach Limehouse Loftis Mason Meacham Pinckney Quinn Rice Robinson Tripp Vaughn Whatley
So, the amendment was tabled.
Reps. FLEMING, BAUER, KNOTTS, TROTTER, KOON, QUINN, LAW and RISER proposed the following Amendment No. 58 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\JIC\5177SD.98).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding a new SECTION to be appropriately numbered which shall read:
/SECTION ___. Notwithstanding any provision of law, if a school district has adopted a policy permitting corporal punishment in certain situations, the school district and any employee thereof is immune from any civil or criminal liability as a result of a student of the district being administered corporal punishment in conformity with the district's policy, absent gross negligence or recklessness./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. BAUER moved to adjourn debate upon the amendment, which was adopted.
Reps. COTTY and ROBINSON proposed the following Amendment No. 59 (Doc Name P:\AMEND\GJK\21081SD.98), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding after Section 59-8-1330 on page 16 a new section to read:
/Section 59-8-1340. The standards and assessments adopted and developed under Article 5 of this chapter and the form and content of the report cards issued under Article 7 of this chapter must be first approved by the General Assembly by concurrent resolution./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. COTTY explained the amendment.
Rep. HARRELL moved to table the amendment.
Rep. COTTY demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Bailey Barfield Barrett Bauer Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Byrd Chellis Cobb-Hunter Cromer Dantzler Edge Fleming Gourdine Harrell Hawkins Hines, J. Hines, M. Hinson Inabinett Keegan Kelley Kinon Kirsh Lanford Law Lee Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Mack Maddox Martin McCraw McKay Meacham Mullen Neilson Phillips Pinckney Rhoad Riser Rodgers Sandifer Scott Simrill Smith, D. Smith, F. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stuart Townsend Trotter Walker Webb Whatley Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Woodrum Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Battle Baxley Beck Bowers Brown, T. Campsen Carnell Cato Cave Cooper Cotty Davenport Delleney Easterday Gamble Govan Hamilton Harris Harrison Harvin Haskins Jennings Jordan Knotts Koon Leach Loftis Mason McGee McLeod McMaster Miller Moody-Lawrence Neal Quinn Rice Robinson Seithel Smith, J. Stoddard Vaughn Young-Brickell
So, the amendment was tabled.
Rep. ALLISON moved that the House do now adjourn, which was adopted.
Further proceedings were interrupted by adjournment, the pending question being consideration of amendments, cloture having been ordered.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 4472 -- Reps. Sharpe, J. Smith, Lloyd, Battle, Webb, Riser, Rhoad, Davenport, Inabinett, Witherspoon, T. Brown, Miller, Edge and Bauer: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND SOUTH CAROLINA'S FFA MEMBERS, THEIR FFA ADVISORS, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, PARENTS, AND ALL WHO SUPPORT, PROMOTE, AND ENCOURAGE THESE OUTSTANDING STUDENTS OF NATURAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES EDUCATION ON THE OCCASION OF THE OBSERVANCE AND CELEBRATION OF NATIONAL FFA WEEK, FEBRUARY 21 - 28, 1998.
H. 4474 -- Rep. G. Brown: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SORROW AT THE DEATH OF JACK REMBERT KELLEY OF LEE COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
H. 4475 -- Rep. G. Brown: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SORROW AT THE DEATH OF HENRY E. WELCH, JR., OF LEE COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
At 1:37 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. SIMRILL adjourned in memory of Mrs. Lucille Acker Sibley of Rock Hill, to meet at 2:00 P.M. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 10:32 A.M.