Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator RYBERG.

TO:       The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM:   Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
DATE:   April 1, 1997
In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
Representative F. G. Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman
Senator Edward E. Saleeby
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Representative Ralph W. Canty
Representative William Douglas Smith
Harry M. Lightsey, Jr., Esquire
Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Irma R. Pringle, Esquire
Nick Fisher, Esquire

Date Draft Report Issued:         Wednesday, March 26, 1997
Date and Time Final Report Issued:     Tuesday, April 1, 1997 - 12:00 noon

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 20 candidates qualified for judicial office and no candidates not 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.
Since the release of the last screening report, the Judicial Merit Selection Commission was enacted. The Commission is composed of ten members, and for the first time four of those members are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started previously. The Commission has asked candidates offering for the Circuit Court their views on sentencing philosophy for different categories of individuals. These questions were asked in an effort to provide the members of the General Assembly more information about candidates and their thought processes. These questions should not suggest that the Commission believes that there are right or wrong answers to those questions. 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 they are seeking. Candidates for the Circuit Court were asked to provide evidence of their experience in civil and criminal law. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer. 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 created 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 that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of those 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 across the societal spectrum (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates; 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 area and then others 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 report on their candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports from the committees 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 it questions each candidate on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on its evaluative criteria. These evaluative criteria include the following: 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 is to 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, if elected, they will 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 it represents 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 Hazzard at 212-6610 or Beth Atwater at 734-3125.
This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Court of Appeals and Circuit Court.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Howell meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Howell was born on March 8, 1941. He is 56 years old. Judge Howell 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 Howell.
Judge Howell 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 or ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Howell owns a 1/8 interest in 3,382 acres of mostly inherited real estate that periodically sells timber.
Judge Howell reported he was a member of the following bar associations:
(a)   American Bar Association
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association
(c)   Colleton County Bar Association
Judge Howell listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   Clemson Alumni Association
Judge Howell 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 Howell testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Howell testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Howell to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Howell stated he has attended all CLE and Judicial Conferences as well as four Council of Chief Judges' Seminars. He has also attended the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, twice.
Judge Howell has taught courses and CLEs for the South Carolina Bar Association, South Carolina Defense Trial Lawyers Association, Council of Chief Judges meetings, and the Annual Judicial Conference. He has taught CLE Seminars on a variety of subjects including, but not limited to, Ethics, Civility, Workers' Compensation, Post Conviction Relief, Impact Cases, and Appellate Courts. He has organized and presided over South Carolina Court of Appeals seminars and retreats for judges and court employees. He has taught Trial Advocacy to third-year law students at Harvard Law School as a member of the clinical faculty, as well as New Circuit and Family Court Seminars.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Howell did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Howell did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Howell has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Howell 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 Howell is married with three children, ages 30, 28, and 24. One child is a homemaker and graduate student. Another is a vice president at NationsBank. The youngest is a graduate student.
Judge Howell served in the South Carolina Senate from 1977 to 1979.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Howell appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Howell appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Howell was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.
Since his graduation from law school he practiced law from 1967 to 1969 with Thomas M. Howell, Jr. From 1969 to 1979, he practiced in a partnership with Gerald C. Smoak, Auburn J. Bridge, and Lee Ray Moody.
Judge Howell was elected City Recorder for the City of Walterboro and served from 1971-1972. He was elected Circuit Court Judge at-large and served from 1979-1993. He is presently Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and has served since 1993.
Judge Howell listed his 5 most significant orders or opinion as follows:
(a)   Jourdan v. Boggs\Vaughn Contracting, Inc., Op. No. 2559 Filed September 3, 1996.
(b)   Byrd v. Stackhouse Sheet Metal Works, 451 S.E.2d 404 (1994).
(c)   Koenig v. South Carolina Dept. Of Public Safety, Op. No. 2608 Filed December 23, 1996.
(d)   State v. Sarvis, 450 S.E.2d 606 (1994).
(e)   Dean v. Kilgore, 437 S.E.2d 454 (1993).

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Howell's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Howell meets established criteria for the position of Appellate Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cureton meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service. Judge Cureton was born on April 26, 1938. He is 58 years old. Judge Cureton 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 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 communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Cureton reported that he was a member of the following bar associations:
(a)   Richland County Bar Association
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association
Judge Cureton listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   United Way of the Midlands, Board of Directors and committees;
(b)   Boys and Girls Clubs of Midlands, Board of Directors;
(c)   The Nurturing Center of Columbia, Secretary and Vice President;
(d)   USC Law School Minority Advisory Board;
(e)   South Carolina Law Institute;
(f)   Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity;
(g)   Christian Legal Society, National;
(h)   USC Medical School Community Advisory Board.
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 campaign expenditures of $57.73.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Cureton to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Cureton stated that during the previous five years he has attended all judicial continuing legal education seminars offered. He provided he has also attended several CLEs during this period.
Judge Cureton taught several courses and CLEs, including lecturer at the South Carolina Bar Criminal Law Seminar, lecturer at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals' South Carolina Appellate Court Judges Seminar, lecturer at the South Carolina Bar's South Carolina Appellate Practice Seminar, and panelist, the South Carolina Bar's Civil Trial Advocacy Bench/Bar Conference. As Staff Judge Advocate of the 120th Army Reserve Command at Fort Jackson, he coordinated and moderated the yearly JAG CLE Seminar for Reserve and National Guard JAG officers. He was also a lecturer at the South Carolina Bar's Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court, and he presented the Masters-In-Equity portion of the yearly South Carolina Bar's Bridge the Gap Program from 1980-85. Judge Cureton was a lecturer at the Appellate Practice CLE, the South Carolina Bar's Proceedings Before Masters-In-Equity Seminar, and the South Carolina Bar's Substantive and Procedural Law Update and a panel participant at the Appeals, Administrative Procedures & Related Topics CLE.
Judge Cureton was an author of the South Carolina Appellate Practice Handbook and an editor of Marital Litigation in South Carolina.

(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 is married to Vessie Jean Burkins. He has two children, ages 29 and 11. One child is a high school drama teacher and the other is a student.
Judge Cureton served as an officer in the United States Army from 1961-1963. In 1990 he retired from the United States Army Reserve with the rank of Colonel in the JAG Corps.
Judge Cureton was a teacher at McCrorey-Liston High School in Blair, South Carolina from August 1963 to September 1964. He was a social worker for the City of New York on two occasions from June 1960 to February 1961 and from February 1963 until August 1963.
Judge Cureton was appointed by Columbia City Council and served on the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Columbia from 1972-76. He was appointed by the President of the United States and served as Appeals Agent for the Selective Service System from 1970-71.

(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 1967.
After his graduation from law school, Judge Cureton practiced civil poverty law as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Service Agency from June 1967 to December 1968. From January 1969 until February 1976, he was a solo practitioner in general law with an emphasis on property and business matters. From February 1976 to September 1982, Judge Cureton served as Master-In-Equity for Richland County. He was appointed as special circuit court judge from 1981 to 1982. He served as a Family Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit from September 1982 until September 1983.
He has served as a associate justice for the Court of Appeals since September 1983.
Judge Cureton listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   Hussey v. Hussey, 280 S.C. 418, 312 S.E.2d 267 (En Banc) (Ct. App. 1984).
(b)   Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau, 283 S.C. 155, 321 S.E.2d 602 (Ct. App. 1984) Partly quashed, 287 S.C. 140, 36 S.E.2d 472 (1985) (as to one issue only).
(c)   Chavous v. Brown, 299 S.C. 398, 385 S.E.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1989), reversed, 296 S.E.2d 98, subsequently affirmed, 409 S.E.2d 356.
(d)   Askins v. Firedoor Corp. Of Florida, 281 S.C. 611, 316 S.E.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1989).
(e)   Raven v. Greenville County, 315 S.C. 447, 434 S.E.2d 296 (Ct. App. 1993).
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Cureton's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Cureton meets established criteria for the position of Appellate Court judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Pleicones meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Pleicones was born on February 29, 1944. He is 52 years old. Judge Pleicones 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 Pleicones.
Judge Pleicones 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 social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Pleicones is a member of a partnership (QUINCUNX) which owns his former law firm's office building. Judge Pleicones stated he was unable to divest himself without serious economic consequences. He recuses himself from all cases involving his former partners.
Judge Pleicones reported that he was a member of the following professional organizations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association, previously a member of the House of Delegates.
(b)   Richland County Bar Association.
(c)   South Carolina Woman Lawyers Association.
(d)   South Carolina Circuit Judge's Association.
Judge Pleicones listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   Charter member (Master of the Bench), John Belton O'Neill Chapter, American Inns of Court;
(b)   Board of Commissioners, Columbia Housing Authority;
(c)   Board Member, Richland County DSS;
(d)   Board Chairperson, Richland County Public Defender Agency;
(e)   United Way Palmetto Society;
(f)   Order of AHEPA;
(g)   WildeWood Country Club
Judge Pleicones 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 Pleicones testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Pleicones testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Pleicones to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Pleicones stated that he has attended a wide variety of CLEs and has always exceeded mandatory requirements. Since becoming a judge, he has attended all JCLEs, except two. He attended a National Judicial College course entitled "Children in Court" in October 1993 and a General Jurisdiction course in 1992.
Judge Pleicones has taught several courses and CLEs, including, "Bridge the Gap," through 1995, Ex Parte Communications for the State Bar Association, and the legal segment for "Leadership Columbia." He has presided over numerous Moot Court competitions. And has been a speaker at various civic organizations, including National Verbatim Court Reporters Conference. He was a lecturer at the South Carolina Association of Legal Secretaries on the topic of Circuit Court Rules and a speaker at various CLE programs and at the South Carolina Young Lawyers "Law School for Non-Lawyers" program.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Pleicones did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Pleicones did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Pleicones has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Pleicones 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 Pleicones is married and has two daughters. One is 27 years old and works for Companion Life. One is 24 years old and is a graduate student.
Judge Pleicones indicated his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was an "AV".
Judge Pleicones has served in the United States Army since 1968. He is presently a colonel in the Reserves.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Pleicones appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Pleicones appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Pleicones was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1968.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Pleicones was on active duty in the United States Army from November 1968 until March 1973. His legal experience included Chief of Military Justice and Trial Counsel. From March 1973 until February 1975, Judge Pleicones worked as Assistant Public Defender for Richland County. From February 1975 until February 1976, Judge Pleicones was in private practice with the offices of N. Welch Morrisette and an independent contractor with the Richland County Public Defender Agency. From February 1976 until March 1977, Judge Pleicones was the Chief Deputy Public Defender for Richland County. From March 1977 until January 1981, Judge Pleicones was a private practitioner with Harrison and Pleicones. He also served as Assistant County Attorney for Richland County. From January 1981 until June 1991, Judge Pleicones was a partner at Lewis, Babcock, Pleicones & Hawkins. He served as a Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia from September 1982 until March 1988.
Judge Pleicones was elected Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in July 1991.
Judge Pleicones listed his 5 most significant orders as follows:
(a)   State of South Carolina, ex rel Michael Carter v. The State of South Carolina, et al. 94-CP-40-1566.
(b)   Town of Hilton Head Island, et al v. Earle E. Morris, Jr. et al, 94-CP-40-4442.
(c)   Byerly Hospital, et al. v. South Carolina State Health and Human Services Finance Commission, Opinion # 24285, July 24, 1995, affirming his trial ruling.
(d)   Neese v. Michelin, et al, Opinion # 2578, South Carolina Court of Appeals, October 14, 1996, affirming his trial ruling.
(e)   State v. Jackson, was a spousal sexual criminal jury trial over which he presided. It was the first successful prosecution in the state for this offense.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Pleicones temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Pleicones meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Rawl meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Rawl was born on January 5, 1946. He is 51 years old. He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has also 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 Rawl.
Judge Rawl 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 Rawl reported that he was a member of the following professional organizations:
(a)   Charleston County Bar Association;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   American Bar Association;
(d)   American Judicature Society.
Judge Rawl listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   Cancer Society;
(b)   Lions Club;

(c)   Heart Association.
Judge Rawl testified that he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge or 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 Rawl testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Rawl testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Rawl to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Rawl has attended all facets of CLE/JCLE seminars. He has also attended the National Judicial College and the Army's Military Judges Course.
Judge Rawl has served on the Editorial Committee for "The Law of Workers' Compensation" by B. Maybank; "South Carolina Rules of Evidence" by J. Kahn; and "Cross-Examinations" by W. Moise.
Judge Rawl has taught courses and CLE's, including, the South Carolina Defense Trial Lawyers Convention, 1991-1996, the South Carolina Bar Association Winter Meeting, 1991-1996, the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Educational Conference, as well as several other South Carolina Bar Association Courses, mostly on evidence, rules, and criminal law updates.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Rawl did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Rawl did not indicate evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Rawl has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Rawl 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 Rawl is married and has two children. The oldest is 27 and is an attorney. The youngest is deceased.
Judge Rawl served in the South Carolina National Guard (Army) from 1968 to 1994. He was a Lieutenant Colonel.
Judge Rawl served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1977-79 and 1981-86.
He was appointed to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission and served from 1986-90.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Rawl appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Rawl appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Rawl was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Since his graduation from law school, he practiced in a general law practice from 1973 to 1981 with Murphy, Rawl & Runey. From 1981 to 1986, he had a general solo practice. From 1986 to 1990, he served on the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Committee as Commissioner. From 1990 to 1991, he worked as a staff attorney for the South Carolina Second Injury Fund.
Judge Rawl was elected to the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in 1991.
Judge Rawl listed his 5 most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   Paul Ross, M.D. v. M.U.S.C., et al., S.C. Court Opinion #24173; heard October 4, 1994, filed December 16, 1995.
(b)   A. Karen Kreutner v. Dan David, et al., S.C. Court Opinion #24332; heard April 18, 1995, filed October 16, 1995.
(c)   State v. Jason Gourdine, S.C. Court Opinion #24444; heard April 17, 1996, filed June 10, 1996.
(d)   Richard H. Coen, et al, v. C. Deas Gadsden, et al, South Carolina Court Opinion #24469; heard June 5, 1996, filed July 22, 1996.
(e)   Future Group II, et al v. NationsBank, S.C. Court Opinion #24500; heard May 4, 1995, filed October 7, 1996.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Rawl's temperament has been and will continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Rawl meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Patterson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Patterson was born on September 2, 1940. He is 56 years old. He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years. Judge Patterson also has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1966.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical behavior by Judge Patterson.
Judge Patterson 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 Patterson reported that his wife jointly owns real estate with attorney, John G. Cheros.
Judge Patterson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a)   Greenville County Bar Association;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association.
Judge Patterson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Buncombe Street United Methodist Church - Sunday School Teacher;
(b)   Greenville YMCA.
Judge Patterson 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 Patterson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Patterson testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Patterson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Patterson described his judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(A)   1992-   General Jurisdiction, National Judicial College
(B)   1993-   Judicial Conference
Circuit Court Bench/Bar
(C)   1994-   9th Annual Criminal Law Update
Circuit Judges Seminar
Judicial Conference
Faculty Advisor-General Jurisdiction, National Judicial College
(D)   1995-   10th Annual Criminal Law Update
Circuit Judge's Spring Conference
Judicial Conference
SC Tort Law Update: A Circuit Court Bench /Bar Seminar
(E)   1996-   11th Annual Criminal Law Update
Circuit Judge's Spring Conference
Judicial Conference
Judge Patterson provided the following courses and CLEs that he has taught:
(a)   Advanced Evidence Course-1996 at National Judicial College
(b)   Faculty Advisor for General Jurisdiction Program -1994
(c)   Panelist for "Proposed SC Rules of Evidence Compared to Fed. Rules of Evidence"
(d)   Lecturer at Greenville County Bar CLE Seminar 1991
(e)   Speaker on "Child Abuse, Neglect & Dependency Actions" at New Family Court Judges Seminar
(f)   Speaker on "New Family Court Rules" at a JCLE Seminar
(g)   Speaker on "Equitable Distribution Update" at Bench-Bar Conference on Family Court in 1987
(h)   Speaker on "Family Law Update (Statutes & Case Law)" 1986
(I)   Speaker on "Child Abuse, Neglect & Dependency Actions" at New Family Court Judges Seminar in 1985
(j)   Panelist at Family Court Judicial Conference in 1983

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Patterson did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Patterson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Patterson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Patterson 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.
Judge Patterson reported that he was personally sued in 1975 by Attorney Hal J. Warlick, but the matter was resolved upon service of pleadings.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Patterson is married and has 3 adult children, ages 31, 28, and 27. Their occupations are those of a teacher, soldier, and youth minister.
Judge Patterson served as a Captain in the US Army from 1966-1968. He served as a Colonel in the US Army Reserves from 1963-1994.
Judge Patterson was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1970-1971.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Patterson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Patterson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Patterson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1966. Since graduating from law school, Judge Patterson has worked as an associate for Howard Ballenger in 1968, as an associate and partner at Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason from 1969 to 1972, as a partner with Cheros & Patterson from 1972-1976, as a sole practitioner from 1976 to 1980, as Family Court Judge for the 13th Judicial Circuit from 1980 to 1991, and as Resident Circuit Court Judge for the 13th Judicial Circuit since 1991.
Judge Patterson listed the following as his 5 most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 404 S.E.2d 895 (1991), Case No. 88-CP-10-66
(b)   Cornelia Whitner, 186151 v. State of South Carolina, Case No. 93-CP-39-347
(c)   Theodore A. Watson v. LeAnn O. Watson, 351 S.E.2d 883 (1986), 84-DR-23-1722
(d)   Darrell Pruitt, 98111 v. State of South Carolina, Case No. 90-CP-23-2409
(e)   State of South Carolina v. Tim G. Phillips, Indictment No. 93-GS-23-8598

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Patterson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Patterson meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Gregory meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Gregory was born on March 15, 1941. He is 55 years old. Judge Gregory 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 Gregory.
Judge Gregory 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 Gregory is a member of the South Carolina Bar Association.
Judge Gregory listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   South Carolina Golf Club - 1996 to present;
(b)   Country Club of Beaufort - 1993-1996;
(c)   Cat Island Golf Club - 1991-1996.
Judge Gregory 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Gregory testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Gregory testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Gregory to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Gregory has attended all facets of CLE/JCLE seminars. He has also attended the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Gregory did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations. The Commission's investigation of Judge Gregory did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. He has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Gregory 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 Gregory is married and has three children. The oldest is 24 and is a law student at Wake Forest University. The middle child is 23 and is a student at the University of South Carolina. The youngest is 16 and is a high school student.
Judge Gregory served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1980-91.

(6)   Physical Heath:
Judge Gregory appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Gregory appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Gregory was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Gregory served as a law clerk for Justice Bruce Littlejohn from September 1967 to June 1968. He worked as an associate in the law office of Roy McBee Smith from June 1968 to March 1969. From April 1969 to January 1971, he worked as an associate with James P. Harrelson. Beginning in January 1971, he was a partner in the firm of Harrelson and Gregory until June 1982. Judge Gregory was a solo practitioner from June 1982 until July 1991. His law practice consisted of civil, criminal, and domestic matters.
Judge Gregory was elected Circuit Court Judge for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in 1991.
Judge Gregory listed his 5 most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   Jessie Gurganious, Sr. v. City of Beaufort , Opinion #2304, heard December 7, 1994, filed February 13, 1995. (aff'd Ct. App.).
(b)   Janice Hunter v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. et al, Opinion #2260, submitted November 1, 1994, filed November 28, 1994. (aff'd Ct. App.).
(c)   James E. Gastineau v. Leigh Murphy, et al, Opinion #2517, heard May 7, 1996, filed June 10, 1996 (aff'd Ct. App.).
(d)   Andrew Musaelian v. Rose Hill Plantation Dev. Co. et al, Opinion #96-UP-176, submitted May 7, 1996, filed June 6, 1996 (aff'd Ct. App.).
(e)   Gee Construction Co. v. Hilton Head Plantation, Opinion #95-UP-188, heard June 7, 1995, filed June 26, 1995. (aff'd Ct. App.).

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Gregory's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Gregory meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Maring meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Maring was born on July 21, 1945. He is 51 years old. He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 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 Maring.
Judge Maring 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 Maring provided that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association
(b)   S.C. Circuit Court Judge's Association
Judge Maring provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Elder, Georgetown Presbyterian Church, 1991-1996
(b)   Former member of the Georgetown Dance Club [Ribbon Club]-No Office held
(c)   Present member of the Georgetown Historical Society
Judge Maring testified that he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge or 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 Maring testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Maring testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Maring to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Maring provided that during the previous five years, his continuing legal or judicial education has included the following:
(a)   JCLE, 15 hours each year
(b)   National Judicial College:
(1)   Criminal Procedure and Advanced Evidence, 2-week course, 1991
(2)   General Jurisdiction, 4-week course, 1992
(3)   Evidence Law, 1-week course, 1993
(4)   Civil Mediation, 1-week course, 1994
Judge Maring provided the following courses and CLEs that he has taught:
(a)   S.C. Supreme Court Law Clerks and Staff Attorneys Seminar, 1982
(b)   S.C. Dept. Of Social Services, Duties of Solicitors in Child Abuse or Neglect Cases, 1983
(c)   S.C. Bar, Bench Bar Conference, 1983, 1984, 1985
(d)   S.C. Assoc. Of Legal Secretaries, 1983, 1989
(e)   Low Country mediation Network, Joint Custody, 1984
(f)   JCLE Circuit and Family Court, Legal Writing, 1984
(g)   Judicial Conference, Mental Health Commitments, 1985
(h)   S.C. Association of Clerks of Court, Child Support Enforcement, 1986
(I)   Task Force for Guardian Program on Legal Policy, 1986
(j)   S.C. Guardian Program, 1987
(k)   S.C. Bench Bar Conference, Child Support Guidelines, 1987
(l)   S.C. Child Abuse Seminar, 1988
(m)   Charleston County Bar, Family Court Law Seminar, 1998
(n)   JCLE Problems when Divorce, Custody and Allegations of Child Abuse are Intertwined, 1988
(o)   S.C. Bar, Mandamus and Injunctive Relief, 1988
(p)   National Conference of Guardian ad Litem's, 1988
(q)   S.C. Guardian Program, 1988
(r)   Guardian Program State Conference, 1989

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Maring did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Maring did not indicate evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Maring has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Maring 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.
Judge Maring reported that he was a defendant in the following cases:
(a)   Oliver Claypool, Jr. v. Judge David Maring, Sr., and Judge David Wilburn. The case was dismissed on a pre-trial motion.
(b)   Jesse R. Lance v. Wonderlyn Bell, G. Turner Perrow, Jack Scoville, Master-in-Equity, David Maring, Circuit Court Judge, and Fred Moore. The case was dismissed by the court on motion for summary judgment.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Maring is married and has three adult children, two of whom are attorneys and the third is a construction supervisor by occupation.
Judge Maring served in the Marine Corp Reserves from 1971-1973 and the SC National Guard from 1973-1977.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Maring appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Maring appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Maring was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
Upon graduating from law school, Judge Maring began practice as a sole practitioner from 1971 to 1977, served part time as Andrews City Judge from 1973 to 1974 and as Georgetown City Judge from 1974 to 1975. Judge Maring served as Family Court Judge from 1977 to 1991 and as a Circuit Court Judge since 1991.
Judge Maring listed the following as his 5 most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   T.J. Schudel v. SC Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission 276 S.E.2d. 308.
(b)   The State v. Robert Lee Driggers, Opinion # 2527
(c)   Eric John Hossenlopp v. William J. Cannon, Jr. and Yong H. Cannon, 329 S.E.2d. 438.
(d)   State v. Rebecca Smith, Opinion No. 96-MO-154
(e)   Larry Eugene Bell v. State of South Carolina.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Maring's temperament has been and will continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Maring meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Thomas meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Thomas was born on October 20, 1957. She is 39 years old. She has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years. Judge Thomas also has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical behavior by Judge Thomas.
Judge Thomas 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 Thomas reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a)   Georgetown County Bar Association, Treasurer 1992
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association
(c)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(d)   Association of Trial Lawyers of America
(e)   American Bar Association
(f)   South Carolina Judge Association
Judge Thomas provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Rotary International
(b)   St. Paul's Waccamaw UMC - Former Board Chairperson
(c)   Pawleys Island Merchants Association - Former Board Member
(d)   Pawleys Retreat, POA- Former Board Member
(e)   Horry/Georgetown HUB Group- Former Board Member
Judge Thomas 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 Thomas testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Thomas testified that she had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Thomas to be intelligent and knowledgeable.
Under the Commission Rules, a candidate may waive practice and procedure questions if that candidate has been screened within the previous year. Judge Thomas was screened on May 7, 1996, and therefore waived this portion of judicial screening. Her responses to the practice and procedure questions from May 7, 1996 are incorporated into the March 12, 1997 transcript of Judge Thomas' public hearing.
Judge Thomas provided that during the previous five years she has complied with at least the minimum requirements for Continuing Legal Education.
Judge Thomas provided the following law-related courses or judicial education programs that she has taught:
(a)   "Restructured State Government & The State of Administrative Law," Speaker
(b)   "So You Want to be a Judge," Speaker to Women in Law

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Thomas did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Thomas did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Thomas has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Thomas 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.
Judge Thomas provided that she has been sued in her capacity as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Thomas is married with three children.
Judge Thomas was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1992 and re-elected in 1994.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Thomas appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Thomas appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Thomas was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986. Since her graduation from law school, Judge Thomas has worked as an associate in the Law Offices of Kenneth W. Thornton in 1987, as a partner in the firm of Rubillo & Thomas from 1987 to 1988, as a sole practitioner from 1988 to 1993, as a partner in the firm of Thomas & Gundling from 1993 to 1994, as a partner in the firm of Lawrimore, Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher in 1994, as a partner in the firm of Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher in 1995, and as a sole practitioner from 1995 to 1996.
Judge Thomas was elected Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat 1 in July 1996.
Judge Thomas listed the following as her most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   State v. Evans, 95-CP-22-573
(b)   Mary Wiggins v. Parsons Nursery Inc. et al, 95-CP-22-272

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Thomas' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Thomas meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED (Mr. Lightsey did not participate in the screening of Judge Dennis.)

(1)   Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Dennis meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Dennis was born on December 2, 1947. He is 49 years old. Judge Dennis provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 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 Dennis.
Judge Dennis 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 Dennis is involved in a joint venture with Charles W. Bounds, M.D., Gordon B. Wellhead, M.D., and Jackie C. Miss involving the purchase of land and lease of properties. Judge Dennis concedes that these individuals are business persons in Moncks Corner and as such could be the subject of litigation in the future. If such should arise and they or any of them were a party-plaintiff or defendant in a law suit to be tried before him, Judge Dennis provided that he would advise all parties of this relationship and offer to recuse himself should any one of them so desire.
Judge Dennis reported that he was a member of the following professional organizations:
(a)   SC Bar Association
(b)   American Bar Association
(c)   American Trial Lawyers Association,
(d)   SC Trial Lawyers Association
(e)   SC Council of School Attorneys
(f)   SC Criminal Defense Lawyers
Judge Dennis listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   Moncks Corner Lions Club (past president, vice-president, and director);
(b)   Moncks Corner Rotary Club (director);
(c)   Berkeley County Chamber of Commerce (vice-president);
(d)   Berkeley County Advisory Board Trident United Way;
(e)   Berkeley Country Club;
(f)   USC Gamecock Club;
(g)   Trident Technical College Foundation Board;
(h)   Trident Chamber of Commerce (Board of Directors);
(I)   Lowcountry YMCA (Board of Directors);
(j)   Capital City Club;
(k)   Berkeley High School Mock Trial Team (coach);
(l)   Member - Pinopolis United Methodist Church. Serves on several church committees and is also a lay leader;
(m)   Member - Moncks Corner Lions Club.
Judge Dennis 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 Dennis testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Dennis testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Dennis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Dennis stated that prior to his election as a circuit court judge, his continuing legal education concentrated on trial advocacy. He also attended courses dealing with topics in employment law and issues in the family courts. Prior to his election, Judge Dennis estimated that he averaged 19 hours per year continuing education. Since assuming his position, he has participated in numerous seminars earning at least 15 hours per year. He has also attended the General Jurisdictional Program at the National Judicial College in July, 1994.
Judge Dennis taught a law class at the Citadel for 3 semesters.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Dennis did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Dennis did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Dennis has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Dennis was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission. However, one affiant testified concerning a delay in the issuance of an order in an easement matter while Judge Dennis was acting as a special referee before Judge Dennis was elected to the Circuit Court.
Mr. L.G. Elrod testified that Judge Dennis took over six months to issue an order in an easement case involving his property. Mr. Elrod believed that the issues in that matter were simple and that the six-month delay was excessive. Judge Dennis admitted to the Commission that the delay in issuing that order was in fact too long. Judge Dennis testified that he was under a great amount of pressure during that period due to the illness of his mother and the attendant stress that her illness placed on his family and law practice, but Judge Dennis did not want to use his situation as an excuse for the delay in ruling on Mr. Elrod's case.
The Commission is confident that since his election to the bench Judge Dennis has implemented procedures to ensure that orders are issued in a timely manner. There is no evidence that a troublesome number of cases are left under advisement for an extended period or that the situation with Mr. Elrod and his case is symptomatic of any current problem with Judge Dennis issuing orders in a timely manner.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Dennis is married with 3 children, ages 23, 21, and 15. One child is an engineer in Houston, Texas, and the other two children are students.
Judge Dennis reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV" in 1993.

(6)   Physical health:
Judge Dennis appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental stability:
Judge Dennis appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Dennis was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Dennis has practiced law in Moncks Corner, South Carolina. He described his practice as general in nature dealing primarily with litigation in family court, civil and criminal court, probate court, and in administrative agencies. He represented the Berkeley County School District for more than 10 years.
Judge Dennis was elected Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat 2 in February 1994, to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable William T. Howell.
Judge Dennis listed his 5 most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   Doe v. Berkeley Publishers, 93-CP-08-133. Case involving the divulging by a newspaper that an inmate had been raped while incarcerated. Judge Dennis directed a verdict for the newspaper because of constitutional immunity for newspapers that publish lawfully obtained material that is truthful and that is a matter of public significance. Florida Star v. BJF, 491 U.S. 524 (1989).
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part Judge Dennis' decision in that case. Doe v. Berkeley Publishers, Ct. App. Op. No. 2501 (Davis Advance Sheet April 27, 1996). A writ of certiorari is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
(b)   BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. SC Public Service Comm'n, 95-CP-40-0638, 95-CP-40-0407, 95-CP-40-0697. Case involved a order that plaintiff refund monies collected under an incentive plan declared unconstitutional by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Judge Dennis affirmed the order of the PSC because that order did not amount to "illegal retroactive ratemaking" but instead was an exercise of the Commission's inherent authority to regulate rates. Judge Dennis further found that the Commission was bound by the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamm v. Southern Bell, 305 S.C. 1 (1991), which held that the Commission should have ordered refunds for charges the Court had determined to be unlawful.
The ruling in this case is currently the subject of a motion for reconsideration.
(c)   SC Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Association v. Liberty Life Insurance Company, 94-CP-40-4373. Declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling whether the plaintiff was responsible for a shortfall caused by the insolvency of another insurance company. Judge Dennis found for the plaintiff ruling that the terms of the agreements in question did not meet the statutory definition of annuity as set forth in the Guaranty Act. He concluded by stating that it was the responsibility and privilege of the legislature, not the courts, to bring the legal definition of annuity in line with current financial practice.
Judge Dennis believes that this case is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals.
(d)   State v. Frazier, 96-GS-08-1125. Order denying a motion to suppress the results of a blood sample.
(e)   State v. Fowler, Warrants E-054091 and E-054092. Case involving a motion to suppress. Defendant alleged that a search by police officers violated the strictures of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In granting the motion to suppress, Judge Dennis provided that he did not believe that the officers had a reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity.
Judge Dennis' decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in State v. Fowler, Op. No. 2490 (Davis Advance Sheet March 30, 1996).

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Dennis' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Dennis meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Shuler meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Shuler was born on May 9, 1948. He is 48 years old. Judge Shuler provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years, and that he has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina in 1973.

(2)   Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Shuler.
Judge Shuler 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 Shuler reported that he was a member of the South Carolina Bar.
Judge Shuler provided that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
Judge Shuler 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 Shuler testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Shuler testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Shuler to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Shuler provided that during the previous five years he has attended the required JCLE courses. He also attended the Judicial College in Reno, Nevada.
Judge Shuler has served as a panel member at CLE courses and has also served as a panel member at a JCLE seminar to discuss the new rules of evidence.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Shuler did not reveal any evidence of complaints or grievances. The Commission's investigation of Judge Shuler did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Shuler has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
Judge Shuler reported that he forfeited a $200 fine for a charge of aiding and abetting a baited dove field in 1990.
Judge Shuler also reported on his PDQ that he forfeited approximately $25 for a charge of negligent burning in 1994.
The Commission also noted that Judge Shuler 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 Shuler is married with 2 children, ages 23 and 20. One child is employed with the South Carolina Highway Department and the other child is a student.
Judge Shuler reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "B" in 1989.
(6)   Physical health:
Judge Shuler appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental stability:
Judge Shuler appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Shuler was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Shuler had a general practice with an emphasis on insurance tort claims, real estate, and criminal matters. Judge Shuler served as Town Recorder for the City of Kingstree from 1973 to 1978, as Public Defender from 1980 to 1988, and as an Assistant Solicitor from 1988 to 1990.
Judge Shuler was elected Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat 3, in May 1990, to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable James Morris.
Judge Shuler listed his 5 most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   State v. Ellis Franklin, Op. No. 24190 (SC Sup. Ct. 1994).
(b)   State v. Gene Raffaldt, Op. No. 24218 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 1995).
(c)   State v. Ernest Roy Trotter, Op. No. 2289 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994).
(d)   City of North Charleston vs. Janie M. Claxton and William L. Claxton, Op. No. 2013 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993).
(e)   Oree B. Crosby, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leroy Crosby, Jr. v. Santee Electric Cooperative, Appellant, and Sumter Builders Inc., Respondent, Op. No. 94-UP-036 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993).

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Shuler's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Shuler meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Watson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Mr. Watson was born on June 2, 1953, and is 43 years old. He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years. Mr. Watson has also been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical behavior by Mr. Watson.
The Commission received one complaint from Mary Ellen Harris regarding the candidacy of Mr. Watson. Mrs. Harris made three allegations in the affidavit she filed in opposition to Mr. Watson:
(1)   That the Solicitor's Office improperly dismissed charges in a case in which the complainant was involved;
(2)   That a county agency involved in the case acted in a retaliatory manner towards the complainant due to a familial relationship between Mr. Watson and an agency employee; and
(3)   That the Solicitor's Office refused to comply with a subpoena and Motion to Compel evidence in private action subsequent to the criminal case.
Solicitor Watson responded to each allegation to the satisfaction of the Commission:
(1)   The Solicitor's Office dropped charges in the complainant's case because the case was not prosecutable. Mr. Watson testified that the charges were dropped for four reasons:
(a)   inconsistent testimony;
(b)   conflicting evidence;
(c)   the difficulty of qualifying a minor as a competent witness; and
(d)   the defendant passed a polygraph test.
The Commission also notes that Mr. Watson did not personally handle this case; it was handled by an assistant solicitor.
(2)   Mr. Watson testified that he had no family ties to anyone working at the county agency and that he had not discussed this case with the employee at the agency. In addition, Commission staff contacted the employee and received an affidavit stating that there was no family relationship and that the Solicitor had never discussed this case with the employee.
(3)   Regarding the subpoena and Motion to Compel, Mr. Watson testified to the following:
(a)   he had no knowledge of this complaint at the time it allegedly occurred; he did not know of it until the complaint was filed prior to the public hearing;
(b)   the subpoena and Motion to Compel were not directed to his office but rather to another agency; and
(c)   it is not the practice of the Solicitor's Office to refuse to comply with requests for evidence.
Mr. Watson 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. Watson 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)   South Carolina Solicitor's Association, Vice President, 1994, President 1995
(d)   National District Attorneys Association
(e)   Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation
Mr. Watson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Rotary Club of Greenville
(b)   Advisory Board of Salvation Army Boy's Club
(c)   Advisory Committee for Drug Free School and Communities Program, School District of Greenville County
(d)   Advisory Board for Greenville Technical College's Alternative Educational Opportunity Program-Operation Success
(e)   Advisory Committee for the South Carolina Educational Resource Center for Missing and Exploited Children at Greenville Technical College
(f)   Task Force on Justice For All of the South Carolina Bar
(g)   Children's Justice Act Task Force
(h)   South Carolina Victim Assistance Policy Committee
(I)   Ex Officio Member of Crimestoppers
(j)   South Carolina Domestic Violence Talk Force
(k)   Criminal Drafting Committee for the South Carolina Uniform Jury Charge Project
(l)   Executive Board of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee
Mr. Watson testified that he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Watson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Watson testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Watson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Watson provided that during the previous five years he has attended annual conferences sponsored by the Commission on Prosecution Coordination and conferences sponsored by the National College of District Attorneys, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation.
Mr. Watson provided the following courses and CLEs that he has taught:
(a)   Criminal Law Update - January 1988
(b)   Criminal Law Seminar - August 1990
(c)   Lecture on Pre-Trial Preparation - September 1991
(d)   Criminal Law Seminar - August 1995 and 1996
The Commission also addressed a newspaper article that appeared in The News regarding the docket backlog in the 13th Circuit. The article charges that the 13th Circuit backlog continues to grow while other circuits have reduced case backlogs. Mr. Watson responded to a Commission request for information with an editorial he sent to The News. He stated that the backlog has been caused by an increase in the number of criminal cases; no increase in the number of weeks of criminal court assigned to the 13th Circuit despite the increased number of cases; the need for more judges; and the number of defendants who request trials rather than plea agreements due to harsher penalties in recent years. Mr. Watson also noted that his office does not dismiss weaker cases or offer plea bargains just to get the cases through the court system. He stated that his office has the highest conviction rate in the state.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Watson did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Watson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Watson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Watson 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.
Mr. Watson reported that he has the following lawsuits pending against him in his capacity as Solicitor:
(a)   James M. Hatchell, et al. v. William B. Depass, Jr., et al. C.A. #96-CP-23-3479
(b)   Gregory Allen Figel v. Judge Pam Bowling, Lieutenant Bill Hitchins and Joseph Watson C.A. #3:93-1698-3BD
(c)   Robert A. Gargan- Tort Claim
(d)   Nicky Raphael Lovett-Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief
(e)   Anthony Mattison-Motion for Default Judgment C.A. #95-CP-23-2649
(f)   Henry W. Martin, Jr. v. Joseph Watson, et al C.A. #6:94-2049-0 AK
(g)   Melvin Julius Robinson v. Harold R. Lowery, Joseph Watson, et al. C.A. # 8:89-560-3K
(h)   James Tinsley v. Joseph Watson, Thirteenth Circuit Solicitors Office and the State of South Carolina C.A. #95-CP-23-1314
(I)   Treasured Arts, Inc. v. Joseph J. Watson, Solicitor of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Watson is married with two children, ages 7 and 11.
Mr. Watson was appointed Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor in July 1985, was elected to this office in November 1986, and has since been re-elected twice, in 1990 and 1994.

(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Watson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Watson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Watson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
Since his graduation from law school, he has served as Assistant Solicitor for the 13th Judicial Circuit from 1978 to 1982; has worked in private practice from 1982 to 1985; and has served as 13th Circuit Solicitor since 1985.
Mr. Watson also provided a letter to the Commission that details his civil trial experience. The Commission also noted that under its rules, it may consider the candidate's expansive experience in one area as compensating for limited experience in other areas of practice.
Through the letter provided to the Commission and through its questions to Mr. Watson in the public hearing, the Commission is satisfied that Mr. Watson possesses the necessary experience to be a circuit court judge.
Mr. Watson listed the following as his five most significantly litigated matters:
(a)   James R. Frazier v. Paul F. Friddle - 83-CP-23-1269.
(b)   The State v. Howard T. Weldon, 295 S.C. 462, 369 S.E.2d 132, cert den (U.S.) 104 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1988).
(c)   The State v. Larry Eugene Hall, 439 S.E.2d 278 (1994).
(d)   Whitner v. State, Opinion No. 24468, filed July 15, 1996.
(e)   The State v. Shawn Paul Humphries, Opinion No. 24542, filed December 9, 1996.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Watson's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Mr. Watson meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Clary meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Clary was born on January 5, 1948. He is 49 years old. He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years. Judge Clary also has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical behavior by Judge Clary.
Judge Clary 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 Clary reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a)   American Bar Association
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association
(c)   American Academy of Hospital Attorneys
(d)   National Health Lawyers Association
(e)   Cherokee County Bar Association (President 1983-85)
Judge Clary provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Boy Scouts of America
(b)   Palmetto Council, Kattan District
(c)   Board of Directors of Gaffney Youth Baseball
Judge Clary 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 Clary testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Clary testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Clary to be intelligent and knowledgeable.
Under the Commission Rules, a candidate may waive practice and procedure questions if that candidate has been screened within the previous year. Judge Clary was screened on March 20, 1996, and therefore waived this portion of judicial screening. His responses to the practice and procedure questions from March 20, 1996 are incorporated into the March 19, 1997 transcript of Judge Clary's public hearing.
Judge Clary provided that during the previous five years he has exceeded the minimum legal and judicial education requirements annually. Since being elected as a circuit judge, Judge Clary has attended a three (3) week General Jurisdiction course at the National Judicial College, and was selected to attend the National Mass Torts Conference in 1994.
Judge Clary provided the following law-related courses or judicial education programs he has taught:
(a)   Adjunct Professor of Business Law, Limestone College
(b)   Moderator/Panelist for Circuit Judges Forum at the South Carolina Defense Attorneys Annual Meeting (1994).
(c)   Panelist for the South Carolina Solicitor's Conference, 1996.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Clary did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Clary did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Clary has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Clary 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.
Judge Clary provided that he was sued individually while serving as a member of the Board of Directors of a closely held corporation, but the action was dismissed by an Order of Dismissal.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Clary is married with two children, ages 21 and 16.
Judge Clary served in the United States Air Force Reserve from 1968 to 1969.
Judge Clary was elected to Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 5, in 1992, and currently holds that position.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Clary appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Clary appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Clary was Minority Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Internal Security and Legislative Assistant to United States Senator Strom Thurmond from 1974 to 1975.
Judge Clary was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975. Since his graduation from law school, Judge Clary has been an associate at J.P. Askins from 1975 to 1976, an Adjunct Professor of Business Law from 1976 to 1986, a sole practitioner from 1976 to 1980, a partner in the firm of Hall, Daniel, Winter & Clary from 1980 to 1991, and a sole practitioner from 1991 to 1992.
Judge Clary was elected to the Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 5, in 1992.
Judge Clary listed the following as his 5 most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   The State v. Johnny Babe Ray, Jr. (90-GS-42-3918).
(b)   The State v. Wade Parris, 96-MO-035 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Filed Jan. 26, 1996).
(c)   Adams, et al v. Texfi Industries, et al, Op. No. 24340 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Nov. 6, 1995), (1994, SC Ct. App.) 443 S.E.2d 913, Reh. Den. (June 16, 1994).
(d)   Justice v. BMG Distribution, Inc., et al, Op. No. 24235.
(e)   Lentezner v. Winthrop University, (93-CP-46--426).

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Clary's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Clary meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lockemy meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Lockemy was born on September 23, 1949. He is 47 years old. Judge Lockemy provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 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 Lockemy.
Judge Lockemy 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 Lockemy reported that he was a partner and owner of several rental properties.
Judge Lockemy reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   American Bar Association - Judge Lockemy is a member of the Judicial Administration Division and within that holds two committee appointments - judicial education and docket management;
(c)   South Carolina Circuit Judges' Association - Judge Lockemy was elected a delegate from South Carolina to the State Trial Judges' Association meeting.
Judge Lockemy provided that he was a member of the following civic charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Dillon Kiwanis Club - President 1982;
(b)   Dixie Youth Baseball Coach, 11-12 year olds, State Runner-up 1996;
(c)   Past President of the Dillon County Theater;
(d)   Voting Member of the Florence Little Theater Guild.
Judge Lockemy 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 Lockemy testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Lockemy testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Lockemy to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Lockemy provided that during the previous five years he has attended all facets of CLE/JCLE seminars as well as many seminars presented by the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He has also attended the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada.
Judge Lockemy provided that he attended the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation 1997 Minnesota Law School Sentencing Workshop.
Judge Lockemy is currently pursuing a Master's Degree in Judicial Studies from the University of Nevada.
Judge Lockemy provided the following courses and CLEs that he has taught:
(a)   Instructor at Campbell College from 1974 to 1977;
(b)   Lectured on evidence at the South Carolina Bar CLE in Charleston in 1996;
(c)   Lectured on the Juror's perspective of the trial at the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Conference in August 1996.
(d)   Panel member during a session of the South Carolina Solicitor's Conference in Fall 1996; and
(e)   Keynote Speaker at the annual South Carolina Probation Officer's Conference in Fall 1996.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Lockemy did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Lockemy did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Lockemy has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Lockemy 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 Lockemy is divorced with 2 children, ages 27 and 19. One child is self-employed and the other child is unemployed.
Judge Lockemy served as a captain in the United States Army from 1974 to 1977. He is currently a Lieutenant Colonel in the South Carolina Army National Guard.
Judge Lockemy served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1982 to 1989.

(6)   Physical health:
Judge Lockemy appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental stability:
Judge Lockemy appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Lockemy was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Lockemy served in the United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps from 1974 to 1977; was an associate in the law office of A. Glenn Greene from October 1977 to January 1978; was a legislative assistant and Judiciary Committee counsel for Senator Strom Thurmond from January 1978 to August 1979; and was a partner in the firm of Greene, Lockemy and Bailey from August 1979 to June 1989.
Judge Lockemy was elected Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat 6 in June 1989.
Judge Lockemy listed his 5 most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   James Russell Cain v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner of Department of Corrections, Op. No. 24503 (SC Sup. Ct. 1996).
(b)   Power Plant Maintenance, Inc. v. Carolina Power & Light Company, 96-CP-16209.
(c)   Heather Greenwood v. Republic Contracting Corp., et al., 93-CP-10-2246.

(d)   State v. Charles Timothy Davis, 93-MO-272 (S.C. Sup. Ct. August 6, 1993). Death penalty case based primarily on circumstantial evidence. Jury recommended life in prison which Judge Lockemy imposed. Affirmed on appeal.
(e)   Perry Todd Smith v. CSXT and South Carolina Highway Department, 91-CP-16-246.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Lockemy's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Lockemy meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hall meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Hall was born on May 20, 1943. He is 43 years old. Judge Hall provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years, and that he 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 reported that he was a member of the following professional organizations:
(a)   SC Bar Association
(b)   American Bar Association
(c)   Anderson County Bar Association
(d)   Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, VA
(e)   Anderson Inn of Court, Co-Founder
Judge Hall listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   Anderson County Court Authority - Ex Officio Member (To 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
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 no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Hall to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Hall stated that every year since 1986 he has exceeded the annual requirements for judicial continuing legal education. He has completed the following CLE courses during the past five years: General Jurisdiction at the National Judicial College in Nevada, Orientation for New Circuit Court Judges in Columbia, and Middle Atlantic State-Federal Judicial Relationships in Williamsburg, Virginia. He is a permanent member of the US Fourth Circuit Court Judicial Conference.
Judge Hall has taught courses at the Orientation School for New Circuit Court Judges since 1992. He also taught seminars at The People's Law School at York Technical College in 1994 and at the SC Solicitors Conference in 1994, 1995, and 1996.

(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 is married and has no children.
Judge Hall served in the Army National Guard of South Carolina from 1968 to 1974. He received an honorable discharge.
Judge Hall reports that he is listed in Martindale-Hubbell, but he was not rated since he is a judge.

(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. Judge Hall reported that he took the bar exam twice.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Hall has practiced law in Anderson, South Carolina. He describes his practice as including civil cases and high-profile death penalty cases, as both a defense attorney and a prosecutor. He concurrently served as an assistant solicitor for the tenth circuit from 1976-1980 and a municipal judge in Anderson from 1974-1976.
Judge Hall was appointed Municipal Court judge for the City of Anderson in 1974. He was elected Family Court judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, in March 1986. He was elected Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat 7, in February 1991.
Judge Hall listed his 5 most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   Ken Moorhead Oil Company v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company v. SC Dept. Of Health and Environmental Control, Anderson County Court of Common Pleas. The SC Supreme Court affirmed in Opinion Number 24498, filed September 23, 1996.
(b)   Jeffrey H. Lerer v. Thompson and Hutson, et al., Greenville County Court of Common Pleas. The SC Court of Appeals affirmed in 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. The case was settled while on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, docket number 94-217.
(d)   Rodney McNeil and Sandra McNeil vs. 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. The SC Court of Appeals affirmed in 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:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Hall meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Short meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Short was born on January 13, 1947. He is 50 years old. Judge Short provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 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 Short.
Judge Short 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 Short reported that he was a member of the following professional organizations:
(a)   SC Bar Association
(b)   American Bar Association
(c)   Chester County Bar Association
(d)   American Judicature Society
(e)   American Judges Association
(f)   SC Association of Circuit Judges (Legislative Reception Committee)
Judge Short listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   Purity Presbyterian Church
(b)   Chester Sertoma Club
(c)   Chester Shrine Club
(d)   Chester Masonic Lodge
(e)   American Legion
(f)   Presbyterian College Board of Trustees

(3)   Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Short to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Short has attended a variety of CLE classes, including classes at the National Judicial College in Phoenix and in Reno and Circuit Court Bench/Bar Seminars.
Judge Short taught a seminar on Rules of Civil Procedure for the South Carolina Legal Secretaries Association in 1995. He also facilitated a General Jurisdiction Course for new judges at the National Judicial College in Nevada.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Short did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Short did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Short has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
After becoming a Circuit Court Judge, Judge Short was sued by a prisoner acting pro se in Priest Gerald Garner v. Condon, et al. Judge Short was dismissed from the case.
The Commission also noted that Judge Short 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 Short is married and has two children. One is a school teacher in Chester County. The other is a student. His wife, Linda Short, is a South Carolina State Senator.
Judge Short served as a 1st Lieutenant in the Army from 1968-1971. He served in the South Carolina National Guard from 1971-1973. He was honorably discharged as Captain. His present status is Inactive Reserve.
Judge Short reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

(6)   Physical health:
Judge Short appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental stability:
Judge Short appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Short was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Short practiced law in Chester, South Carolina with Fred Strickland and E.K. Hardin. In 1973, he began practicing with William Keels. He served in the SC House of Representatives from 1982-1981. He was appointed to the Chester County Airport Commission in 1978 and served until 1980. He was appointed Chester County Attorney in 1980 and served until 1982.
Judge Short was elected Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat 8, in February, 1991.
Judge Dennis listed his 5 most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   Louis J. Truesdale v. Parker D. Evatt, and the SC Dept. Of Corrections, et al., The subject of this Order deals with the reimbursement of expenses incurred by expert witnesses called upon by Petitioner Truesdale in his death penalty case. The Appeal of his case is reported at 301 S.C. 546, 393 S.E.2d 168.
(b)   State of South Carolina v. Gary Allen Rimert, Op. No. 24093, 446 S.E.2d 400. The issue addressed in this Order is whether or not a jury in a criminal case is entitled to hear evidence regarding the sentence a defendant may receive if he is found guilty but mentally ill. I held that the jury's function was to determine guilt and that information about sentencing is irrelevant to such a determination. The Supreme Court affirmed.
(c)   Carol Ann Berkebile v. William C. Outen, 311 S.C. 50, 426 S.E.2d 760. This Order holds that losses from video poker playing are not recoverable pursuant to SC Code Section 32-1-10. Judge Short held that Section 32-1-10 removed the common law bar to the recovery of losses from engaging in illegal gambling. Therefore, if the loss resulted from legal gambling, this Code section would not apply and the Plaintiff cannot recover. The Supreme Court reversed.
(d)   City of Folly Beach v. Atlantic House Properties, Op. No. 24384. This order required Defendants in a condemnation action to pay the Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees pursuant to SC Code Section 28-2-510. The SC Supreme Court reversed.
(e)   Betty Williams, et al. v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Rock Hill and New Hope Carolinas, Inc., This Order affirms the City of Rock Hill Zoning Commission's issuing of a permit to New Hope Carolinas allowing it to operate an institution to care for emotionally handicapped children.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Short's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Short meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge McKellar meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge McKellar was born May 27, 1945. He is 51 years old. He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years. Judge McKellar 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.
Judge McKellar 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 McKellar reported that he was a member of the following professional organizations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association
(b)   American Bar Association
(c)   Richland County Bar Association
Judge McKellar listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   American Judicature Society
(b)   Wildewood Country Club; and
(c)   The University Golf Club
Judge McKellar 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 McKellar testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge McKellar testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge McKellar to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
During the past five years, Judge McKellar has attended various CLE seminars including the Annual Criminal Law Update from 1991-1995, the Annual Civil Law Update from 1991-1996, the Judicial Conference from 1991-1996, and the National Judicial College in 1992.
Judge McKellar has taught SC Bar CLE courses in "Successful Litigation," "Civility in Practice," and Circuit Court Bench/Bar Update. He also taught "Law School for Non-Lawyers" with the SC Bar Young Lawyers Division.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge McKellar did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge McKellar did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge McKellar has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge McKellar 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 McKellar is married and has no children.
Judge McKellar served in the US Navy from 1968 to 1972. He received an honorable discharge. His highest rank was E-5.
Judge McKellar served as Mayor of Arcadia Lakes from 1977 to 1985.
Judge McKellar reported his last Martindale-Hubbell ranking was "BV".

(6)   Physical health:
Judge McKellar appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental stability:
Judge McKellar appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties f the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge McKellar was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.
After graduating from law school, Judge McKellar worked with Holler, Gregory, McKellar from 1976 to 1978. He describes the firm as having a general practice. From 1978 to 1991, he worked in the SC National Bank Law Department dealing with litigation in state and federal courts. From 1977 to 1985, he was Mayor of the Town of Arcadia Lakes.
Judge McKellar was elected Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat 9, in February 1991.
Judge McKellar listed his 5 most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   Charles Alston, Jr., et al. v. City of Camden, South Carolina, Op. No. 24431 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed May 20, 1996).
(b)   Anderson Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Samuel Andrew Hagen, 313 S.C. 497, 443 S.E.2d 399 (1994).
(c)   The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina v. John F. Lanford et al., 313 S.C. 540, 443 S.E.2d 549 (1995).
(d)   PalmettoNet, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Commission, 456 S.E.2d 385 (1995).
(e)   MPH Holdings, Inc. v. Belk's Department Store of Columbia et al., Case Number 91-CP-40-2252.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge McKellar's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge McKellar meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Provisions:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Barber meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Mr. Barber was born on December 20, 1943. He is 53 years old. He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years. Mr. Barber also has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical behavior by Mr. Barber.
Mr. Barber 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. Barber reported that he is President of Park Title Agency, Inc., serves as Board member and Secretary of Eagle Aviation, Inc., and serves as secretary in connection with representing the following corporations:   (a)   Dorsey Horton, Inc.
(b)   Edge Production, Inc.
(c)   Rally Corporation
Mr. Barber reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a)   Richland County Bar Association
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association (Member of Lawyers' Insurance Committee)
(c)   American Bar Association
(d)   American Judicature Society
Mr. Barber provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Richland Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees
(b)   Richland Memorial Hospital Foundation
(c)   University of South Carolina Alumni Association
(d)   South Carolina Bar Foundation
(e)   St. John's Episcopal Church
Mr. Barber 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. Barber testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Barber testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Barber to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Barber attended the following CLEs in the immediate past 5 years:
1991-   Domestic Practice; Evidence Law Update
1992-   Legal Ethics & Real Life; Effective Deposition Techniques and Strategies for Success; Domestic Practice
1993-   Preventing Motion Sickness; That Was the Year that Was
1994-   Rules, Rules, Rules; Ethical Considerations; Business Torts, Title Insurance and Underwriting
1995-   The New South Carolina Rules of Evidence
1996-   Consumer Law Seminar; Corporation, Banking & Securities/Tax Law Joint Seminar; Trial Practice Tune-Up; Chicago Title-Insurance Claims and Underwriting Seminar
Mr. Barber provided that he taught Business Law at the University of South Carolina College of Applied Sciences.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Barber did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Barber did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Barber has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Barber 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.
Mr. Barber provided that he has been sued in his capacity as County Councilman for Richland county.

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Barber is married and has three children, ages 12, 8, and 6.
Mr. Barber was the recipient of the President's Cup for distinguished service to the South Carolina Association of Counties in 1981, and was named its President in 1986.

(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Barber appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Barber appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Barber was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969. Upon graduating from law school, Mr. Barber worked for the United States Department of Justice from 1970 to 1972, for the Law Offices of Henry H. Edens from 1972 to 1977, and as a partner in the firm of Todd & Barber since 1977.
Mr. Barber also provided a letter to the Commission that details his experience in criminal trial law. Most of this experience was during his employment with the U.S. Department of Justice, Internal Security Division, in Washington, D.C. during the years from 1970 to 1972. One of his assignments was to work in the Special Litigation Section which was created to respond to much of the violence that arose out of the anti-Vietnam war efforts. In addition, he was involved in a number of high profile matters that included the bombing of the U.S. Capitol case, the Pentagon Papers case, and the Media, Pennsylvania FBI break-in case.
Mr. Barber provided the following as his 5 most significantly litigated matters:
(a)   Shirley and Jack Curry, d/b/a C & T Properties v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 89-CP-10-0676
(b)   Irwin Lynn Hamby v. Linda Snelson Hamby, 216 S.E.2d 536 (1975).
(c)   James E. Nash and John D. Medlin, Individually and as Shareholders on Behalf of Andy's Delicatessen, Inc. V. Adnan Shlon, Docket No.: 88-CP-40-1390.
(d)   Parkway Advertising Corporation v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Future Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., The County of York, South Carolina.
(e)   State of South Carolina v. Ruby Hiott, et al.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Barber's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Mr. Barber meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lee meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Lee was born on September 17, 1958. She is 38 years old. She has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years. Judge Lee also has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical behavior by Judge Lee.
Judge Lee 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 Lee reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a)   American Bar Association (1985-1990)
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association
(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association
(d)   Richland County Bar Association
(e)   Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education (July 1987-June 1988)
(f)   Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances and Discipline (1987-1989)
Judge Lee provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Columbia Chapter of The Links, Inc. (1987-present), Corresponding Secretary 1990-1993, Vice President 1993-1994, President 1994 to present
(b)   Columbia Chapter, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. (1992-present), Parliamentarian 1995-present
(c)   St. Peter's Catholic School Board (1993-1997), Chairperson 1995-1996
Judge Lee 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 Lee testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Lee testified that she had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Lee to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Lee provided that during the previous five years she has attended all facets of CLE/JCLE seminars.
Judge Lee provided the following courses and CLEs/JCLEs that she has taught:
(a)   Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (1995)
(b)   Basic Federal Court Practice (1985)
(c)   Drafting Criminal Laws under the Sentencing Classification Act (1993)
(d)   Bridge the Gap (1996)
(e)   That Was the Year That Was (1997)

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Lee has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Lee 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.
Judge Lee has neither been sued personally nor professionally and has neither been disciplined nor cited for unprofessional conduct or a breach of ethics.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Lee is married with two children, ages 8 and 5.
In 1994, Judge Lee was elected by the General Assembly to the office of Administrative Law Judge.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Lee appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Lee appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Lee was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984. Upon graduating from law school, Judge Lee worked as a Judicial Clerk for the Honorable Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeals from 1982-83; as a Judicial Clerk for the Honorable C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., South Carolina Court of Appeals from 1983 to 1984; as an Associate at McNair Law Firm from 1984 to 1989; as Staff Counsel to the South Carolina Legislative Council from 1989 to 1994; and has been serving as an Administrative Law Judge since 1984.
Judge Lee also provided a letter to the Commission that details her trial experience while in private practice. At the McNair Law Firm, Judge Lee acted as co-counsel in the representation of a defendant charged with murder. She also handled numerous civil matters, most of which settled before trial or resulted in summary judgment or directed verdicts.
Through the letter provided to the Commission and through its questions to Judge Lee in the public hearing, the Commission is satisfied that Judge Lee possesses the necessary experience to be a circuit court judge.
Judge Lee listed the following as her 5 most significant orders or opinions:
(a)   State Farm Fire & Gas Co., et al. v. S.C. Dept. of Insurance and S.C. Dept. Of Consumer Affairs, Docket No. 96-ALJ-09-0043-CC
(b)   Coastal Carolina Laboratory v. S.C.DHEC, Docket No. 95-ALJ-07-0678-CC
(c)   M.T.Golf, Inc. v. S.C.Dept. of Revenue, Docket No. 95-ALJ-17-0490-CC
(d)   D'Eredita & Fogle v. S.C.DHEC & Fogle, Docket No. 94-ALJ-07-0319-CC
(e)   S.C.Dept. of Revenue & Taxation v. Strong & Wallace, d/b/a Dealer's Choice and Best Bet, Docket No. 95-ALJ-17-0112-CC

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Lee's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Lee meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Walters meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Mr. Walters was born on May 24, 1964. He is 32 years old. He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years. Mr. Walters also has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1990.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical behavior by Mr. Walters.
Mr. Walters 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. Walters reported that he was an officer in The Magnolia Group of Orangeburg, a newly formed investment corporation.
Mr. Walters provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   YMCA- Orangeburg County
(b)   The Family Health Center-Orangeburg County
(c)   NAACP
(d)   Junior Achievement Board-Orangeburg
(e)   Habitat for Humanity Board
(f)   Claflin College Board of Distinguished Visitors
(g)   UNCF-Chairman (1995-96)
(h)   Former member of Orangeburg Arts Council
(I)   Boy Scouts Volunteer
Mr. Walters 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. Walters testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Walters testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Walters to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Walters provided that during the previous five years he has attended the mandatory CLE courses as required by the SC Bar.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Walters did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Walters did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Walters has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Walters 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.
Mr. Walters provided that he has neither been sued personally nor professionally. While he has had two grievances filed against him, both have been investigated and dismissed by the South Carolina Bar.

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Walters is married and has one infant son.

(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Walters appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Walters appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Walters was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1990. Upon graduating from law school, Mr. Walters has worked as an associate at Johnson, Toal & Battiste from 1989 to 1991, as an Assistant Public Defender at the Richland County Public Defenders Office from 1991-1992, as an Assistant Public Defender at the Orangeburg County Public Defenders Office from 1992-1993, and as a sole practitioner since 1993.
Mr. Walters listed the following as his 5 most significantly litigated matters:
(a)   Shawana Mitchell, by her GAL, Pansy Jackson v. Orangeburg School District 2,
Case No. 94-CP-38-98 Ct of Common Pleas, 1st Jud. Circuit.
(b)   Alphonso Jenkins, Jerome Jenkins, Leveland Jenkins, Charles L. Jenkins v. Geneva J. Bovain, Case No. 95-ES-09-00047 Ct. Of Probate 1st Jud. Cir.
(c)   Beth Randolph v. Stone Manufacturing Co. & Royal Insurance, WCC File No. 9443303.
(d)   State v. Leroy Frazier, 1st Jud Cir., General Sessions
(e)   State v. Joseph Bennett, 1st Jud. Cir., General Sessions

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Walters' temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Mr. Walters meets established criteria for the position of Circuit Court Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

Commission's Finding:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Bates meets the qualifications prescribed by law for continued judicial service.
Judge Bates was born on August 11, 1962. He is 34 years old. He has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past 5 years. Judge Bates has also been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1987.

(2)   Ethical fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Bates 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 Bates is a member of a small investment group known as the Bacchus Investment Group with nine other partners, five who are attorneys. The group makes quarterly contributions and meets periodically to discuss and consider stock investment opportunities. Judge Bates indicated that if he were assigned a case involving any of the partners as litigant or counsel, he would recuse himself.
Judge Bates reported that he was a member of the following professional organizations:
(a)   SC Bar Association;
(b)   SC Bar Young Lawyers Division (New Admittee Task Force, Diversity Task Force);
(c)   Richland County Bar Association.
Judge Bates listed the following organizations of which he is currently or has been a member:
(a)   Eastminster Presbyterian Church;
(b)   Presbyterian College Alumni Association;
(c)   Presbyterian College Scotsmen Club;
(d)   Sigma Nu Alumni Association;
(e)   Columbia YMCA;
(f)   Columbia Museum of Art.
Judge Bates 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 Bates testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Bates testified that he had no campaign expenditures.

(3)   Professional and academic ability:
The Commission found Judge Bates to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Bates stated that he has consistently exceeded his CLE requirements. He has attended classes at the National Judicial College in Reno, completing the following courses: Administrative Law: Fair Hearing, Logic for Judges, and Judicial Writing.
Judge Bates has given several presentations on the Administrative Law Division for the SC Bar's CLE programs, the SC Alliance of Legal Assistant Associations, the Columbia Legal Assistant Association, and the Columbia Junior College Center for Paralegals. He has given the lecture "Effects of 1991 Ethics Act on Local Government" to the Municipal and County Attorneys Institute.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Bates did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Bates did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Bates has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Bates 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 Bates is married and has no children.
Judge Bates indicated that he is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
While in college in 1982, Judge Bates was cited by a game warden for camping on game management property without a permit and for littering. He paid the $60 fine in magistrate's court.

(6)   Physical health:
Judge Bates appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental stability:
Judge Bates appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Bates was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1987.
After graduating from law school, Judge Bates practiced with Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney in the general litigation and workers' compensation areas. From 1988-1993, he was counsel to the Speaker of the SC House. From 1989-1991, he served as staff counsel for the Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening, and from 1991-1993, he served as Staff Counsel for the SC House Legislative Ethics Committee. From 1993 to 1994, he practiced with Roy Bates in the litigation and corporate areas.
Judge Bates was elected Administrative Law Judge, Seat #2 in February 1994.
Judge Bates listed his 5 most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a)   Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, Board of Pharmacy, In Re: Proposed Regulation of the Board of Pharmacy, 95-ALJ-11-0708-RH. This case dealt with proposed pharmacy regulations. Judge Bates found the regulation to be needed, but ordered the General Assembly to modify the drafting to clarify ambiguities.
(b)   Jules S. Nevaiser. M.D. v. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 94- ALJ-11-0150-AP. This case was an appeal of a final decision of the Board of Medical Examiners to permanently revoke a medical license for professional misconduct. The decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court in November 1996, No. 95-CP-26-901.
(c)   DOR v. Clyde J. Burriss, Sr., d/b/a C. Joseph Burriss Liquors, 96-ALJ-17-0201-CC. In this contested case, DOR sought to revoke a retail liquor license because the licensee was "not of good repute" since he did not pay his federal income taxes. The decision to revoke was appealed to the circuit court, which dismissed, No. 96-CP-10-2625,
(d)   John Lindsey, Charleston County Assessor v. Kiawah Real Estate Co., et. al., 96-ALJ-17-0303-CC. This case involved a property tax valuation issue relating the auction sale price of properties sold at an RTC auction. The total fair market value of the properties was found to be $32,841,975.
(e)   DOR v. Mickey Stacks, d/b/a Red Dot Amusements and M.H.S. Enterprises, d/b/a Treasures, 95-ALJ-17-0742-CC. This contested case involved numerous alleged video poker violations under the Video Game Machines Act. The decision was appealed and is pending, No. 96-CP-40-889.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Bates temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Commission received the report of the South Carolina Bar. The Bar found that Judge Bates meets established criteria for the position of Administrative Law Judge. Any concerns that were raised by the Bar have been investigated by the Commission and incorporated into its screening of the candidate.

The following persons were unanimously found qualified:
James R. Barber, III
Stephen P. Bates
Gary E. Clary
Jasper M. Cureton
R. Markley Dennis, Jr. *
Jackson V. Gregory
H. Dean Hall
William T. Howell
Alison Renee Lee
James E. Lockemy
David H. Maring, Sr.
L. Henry McKellar
Larry R. Patterson
Costa M. Pleicones
A. Victor Rawl
Paul E. Short, Jr.
Malcolm Duane Shuler
Paula H. Thomas
Glenn Walters
Joseph J. Watson

*   Mr. Lightsey did not participate in the screening of Judge Dennis.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
/s/Representative F. G. Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Representative Ralph W. Canty
/s/Representative William Douglas Smith
/s/Harry M. Lightsey, Jr., Esquire
/s/Judge Curtis G. Shaw
/s/Irma R. Pringle, Esquire
/s/Nick Fisher, Esquire

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:
An invitation from AT&T to attend a reception at the Magnolia Room, Botanical Gardens @ Riverbanks Zoo/Gervais St. Bridge, Right on #378, Right on Seminole Road (Entrance to Gardens at end of Seminole) on Tuesday, April 15, 1997, from 6:00 until 8:00 P.M.

Courson                   Matthews                  Patterson
Russell                   O'Dell                    Passailaigue
Rose                      McGill                    

Wilson                    Washington

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:
An invitation from SC Assn. of Tourism Regions to attend a reception at Sterling Garden Center on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, from 6:00 until 8:00 P.M.

Courson                   Matthews                  Patterson
Russell                   O'Dell                    Passailaigue
Rose                      McGill                    

Wilson                    Washington

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:
An invitation from SC Assn. of Municipal Power Systems to attend a reception at the State Fairgrounds on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, from 6:00 until 8:00 P.M.

Courson                   Matthews                  Patterson
Russell                   O'Dell                    Passailaigue
Rose                      McGill                    

Wilson                    Washington

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:
An invitation from SC Archives and History Foundation to attend a drop-in/reception in the Blatt Bldg. (Rm. 208) on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, from 8:30 until 10:00 A.M.

Courson                   Matthews                  Patterson
Russell                   O'Dell                    Passailaigue
Rose                      McGill                    

Wilson                    Washington

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:
An invitation from SC Junior Golf Assn. to attend a reception at Sterling Garden Center on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, from 6:00 until 8:00 P.M.

Courson                   Matthews                  Patterson
Russell                   O'Dell                    Passailaigue
Rose                      McGill                    

Wilson                    Washington

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:
An invitation from Columbia City Council to attend a reception at the Adam's Mark Hotel on Tuesday, April 29, 1997, from 6:00 until 7:30 P.M.

Courson                   Matthews                  Patterson
Russell                   O'Dell                    Passailaigue
Rose                      McGill                    

Wilson                    Washington

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:
An invitation from SC State University to attend a Breakfast Reception in the Blatt Bldg. (Rm. 208) on Wednesday, April 30, 1997, from 8:00 until 10:00 A.M.

Courson                   Matthews                  Patterson
Russell                   O'Dell                    Passailaigue
Rose                      McGill                    

Wilson                    Washington

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:
An invitation from Assn. of Citadel Men to attend a Barbecue Dinner at the Cantey Building, Fairgrounds on Wednesday, April 30, 1997, from 6:30 until 10:00 P.M.

Courson                   Matthews                  Patterson
Russell                   O'Dell                    Passailaigue
Rose                      McGill                    

Wilson                    Washington

The following Bill was read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 613 (Word version) -- Senators Holland and Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-2-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURY AREAS FOR MAGISTRATES' COURTS ESTABLISHED IN LANCASTER COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A COUNTYWIDE JURY AREA AND A CENTRALIZED MAGISTRATE'S COURT AND TO ADD A MAGISTRATE TO SERVE AS THE MAGISTRATE OF THE CENTRALIZED MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
(By prior motion of Senator HOLLAND, with unanimous consent)

At 11:25 A.M., on motion of Senator SETZLER, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, April 8, 1997, at 12:00 Noon.

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 10:46 A.M.