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 PATTERSON.
TO: The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM: C. Tyrone Courtney, Chairman
Jt. Legislative Screening Committee to Review Candidates
for the SC Consumer Affairs Commission
DATE: May 6, 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,
/s/Senator C. Tyrone Courtney, Chairman /s/Rep. George Bailey
/s/Senator Robert W. Hayes, Jr. /s/Rep. James N. Law
/s/Senator Glenn G. Reese /s/Rep. Teddy N. Trotter
/s/Senator Dick Elliott /s/Rep. Willie B. McMahand
The Screening Process
Pursuant to Act No. 119 of 1975 and Act. No. 181 of 1993, this Committee has considered the qualifications of candidates seeking election to the positions of the South Carolina Consumer Affairs Commission.
The Committee's report includes the Transcript of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee on April 30, 1997. The Transcript does not include all exhibits offered by candidates or witnesses at the hearing because of the length of some exhibits. Exhibits which are not reproduced as a part of the Transcript may be viewed in the Office of the Banking and Insurance Committee (Room 203 of the Gressette Building), since these exhibits were reviewed and considered by the Committee in making its findings.
CHAIRMAN: Good morning everyone. We'd like to welcome you all here this morning. I'm going to go ahead and open up our meeting. We have Senator Hayes with us from York County, Representative McMahand here also, who are on the Screening Committee. We have some other House members who are in other meetings this morning. Some of those will be coming and going, and so will my colleagues here, unfortunately I'll be here with you the whole time, so we'll try to get you in and out. These things don't take very long, but we do have to have a little information and background. What we're going to try to do is take about 10 minutes or so apiece individually and bring you in, and then after we question you, you'll be able to leave at that time. We'll do it alphabetically. We don't know any better way to do it than that. Hopefully, we're going to be able to get a report out sometime next week, maybe Tuesday or maybe Wednesday, but our staff will get in touch with you and let you know and you need to understand that you cannot seek commitments from any legislator until the report has been filed. But he will notify each one of you personally when that report is filed, and then from that point on you can call legislators and have friends call legislators, however you're going to manage your campaign, to ask for commitments for you. The election of course is on May 21st and so I guess that's pretty much the long and short of how the process works. We appreciate so much interest in this position. It's refreshing to see that we have so many qualified people who are interested in serving in consumer affairs in South Carolina, so we thank you for applying and wish each one of you good luck. And so what we'll do at this time is ask Mr. Carter ... he's the first one alphabetically ... to remain and ask the rest of you if you could to stand outside for a little bit. Those who are on farther down the list, if you want to run to the canteen or restroom or something, you certainly have plenty of time to do that. We'll try to not keep you any longer than we have to. Thank you. Mr. Carter, if you'll have a seat there.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, I guess Mr. Carter is not here. I'm Reese Griffin.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Griffin?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: We'll double the questions on you then to make up for Mr. Carter.
MR. GRIFFIN - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Griffin, we have a little bit of summary on each candidate of course and you've provided a lot of information for us. Generally I'd like to just hear from you a little bit about why you're interested in consumer affairs, you know, what brought your attention to it and so forth and just what you'd like to do in that position.
A: Okay, first of all I do have a strong love and commitment for the state of South Carolina. I'm a native Georgian, but my mother is a native South Carolinian and I've spent a good part of my life here as well as other places. So first of all, I do have a strong interest in the state and in the public affairs of the state.
Q: How long have you lived here?
A: I have currently been in Beaufort for five years. I lived in Spartanburg up until 1961 and then the family was relocated up north and then I returned here and have been in Beaufort since 1992.
Q: Well, Spartanburg's not a bad place to be from. I serving for Spartanburg, but ...
A: No, it's not, right. I really enjoyed living in Spartanburg. My dad was on the faculty at Wofford there.
Q: Oh, okay. How long did he teach there?
A: He taught there from '56 to '61.
Q: I graduated from Wofford College.
A: My interest in consumer affairs stems primarily I think from my experience as an educator. I have been an educator for approximately the last 18, 19 years. I have taught in public secondary schools, I have taught in private trade vocational schools and I'm currently an adjunct instructor at Technical College of the Lowcountry in Beaufort. I have taught a wide range of subjects, everything from ... my main area is automotive technology, but I've also taught history, psychology, reading and even home economics. Now, in home economics, part of the curriculum is consumer issues, is consumerism if you want to say, as how to deal with the marketplace and everything from food shopping to home shopping and all such as that. Also, in the automotive area, there's a good bit of consumer issues there. My research indicates that the Department of Consumer Protection in South Carolina, the last year that they had statistics available, which was fiscal year I believe '93-'94, almost 25 percent of their complaints, formal complaints and activities, were related to automotive issues. So I feel that probably my strongest contribution to the committee would be my knowledge of the automotive industry and also my interest that the image of the automotive industry is in need of some work and some improvement and would like to be able to participate in helping both consumers and businesses to work out some of those issues, and hopefully my expertise in that area would be a positive contribution to the commission.
Q: Well, no doubt about automotive industry has its share of consumer concerns anyway and certainly having an inside into that is not going to hurt you any. What do you feel like the role of the Consumer Affairs Commission is? How do you view it and where do you think you could help the state or the people of the state with in serving in that capacity?
A: The primary function I see is advice and consent to the legislature and to the Department of Consumer Affairs. Beyond that, again just I think ordinary citizens participating in government I believe is probably the key point there, that I am a consumer, I am a citizen. I'm not a professional politician or anything of that type, and as a citizen, I am interested in participating in government.
CHAIRMAN: Questions from the committee?
Q: Mr. Griffin, do you view your role there as being an advocate for the consumer or for industry or mutual or how would you see that?
A: I feel that I could provide a balanced consideration. Obviously I am a consumer, as are we all, and therefore from the consumer's point of view, I would have some input, but I have worked and am currently working in private industry and I am aware of the importance of business and industry in the economic growth and development of the state, so I feel that I could look upon issues and look upon questions with a balanced approach, both from the consumer's point of view and from the point of view of business and industry.
Q: Do you have any questions of us?
A: No, sir, not at the moment.
Q: Any questions for staff?
MR. BELL: I would just ask you, has there been any change in circumstances since you've filed your economic interest statement or filled out your personal questionnaire that you'd like to disclose at this time?
A: No, there has not.
MR. BELL: Thank you, sir.
Q: Mr. Griffin, I'm an attorney and claim that I practice law, but I forgot to swear you or have you sworn before you testified, so I'm going to ask the staff to swear you at this time and just ask you to affirm that everything that you've told us has been the truth if you would do that, James. I'm sorry.
MR. BELL: Do you affirm that everything that you have testified to the committee today is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
A: I do.
MR. BELL: Thank you, sir.
Q: Well, if there are no other questions, we appreciate you coming and you're certainly very well-prepared it looks like. You have a great background. Your educational background looks very good and you have a lot of points I think that would be of interest to the legislature, senators and the House members. And like I said, we have nine people so we're kind of bringing them in and out. I don't want you to take how much time you have in here with us, if you consider it a little bit of time or a whole lot of time, to mean anything at all. We simply find whether you're qualified to run or not. We don't really make any recommendation to the legislature at all as to who is the best candidate or anything like that. We'll simply find you qualified or unqualified and then you're on your own as far as that goes. Senator York?
SENATOR HAYES: Your schedule is such that you wouldn't have any trouble attending meetings? You're flexible enough that you can attend?
A: I should have no ... they're generally evening meetings or afternoon meetings. I do have ... I have a very flexible schedule in my current position. My primary function ... I'm with Two Stroke International Engine Company. I am supervisor of the technical publications and I'm in and out all kinds of odd hours. I mean I could go in at 2:00 a.m. on Sunday morning and get my work done, so I am very flexible and my employer is very flexible, so I do not perceive any problems in attending meetings.
Q: All right, Mr. Griffin. Thank you very much and you're free to leave, and as I said, we'll try to have this report out sometime about the middle of next week. The staff will be in touch with you personally. I'm sure they have the information how to get in touch with you.
A: Yes.
Q: Once you receive the information that it has been filed, you're free then to contact legislators and seek commitments.
A: Okay, thank you very much.
Q: Not until that time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Henderson, I want to thank you again for coming and thank you for your interest. Consumer Affairs is certainly an important agency here in South Carolina because it represents the consumers in this state and its problems that they may have because it's kind of the little guy sometimes against the big guys and they're not on equal footing sometimes and this agency does a great job and the consumer advocate does a great job in representing them before the legislature also in the legislation that we consider. Before we start ... we're just going to have a few questions, it won't take very long ... but we would like to put you under oath before we begin.
MR. LANDRUM H. HENDERSON, JR., having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. HENDERSON - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Henderson, to begin with, just tell us a little bit about how you got interested in the Consumer Affairs position and why you feel like you'd like to serve in that capacity.
A: Okay. Of course, I saw the announcement in The State paper and I've always liked to try to be involved anyplace I've lived. I've moved around a lot in my job in a management and financial services business. But I'm a South Carolina native and hopefully I know I'm going to be here now until I retire in the next 15 or 20 years, so I want to get even more involved deeper. But I have dealt with consumers my whole 23 years in my career in the financial services industry. I was at first a stockbroker for seven years. The last 16 years I have been in management. My job is to train and manage people to make sure that our clients, which are our consumers, are treated fairly in every way, shape and form, and their needs and what is best for that client is always kept in the forefront, before the brokers. Also, I'm an NASD arbitrator which is very similar to what we're talking about right now. An NASD arbitrator is the National Association of Security Dealers. When a client, a consumer, has a complaint against a financial services industry representative ... could be a brokerage firm, a bank or whatever ... felt like they have not been treated fairly, they bring it before a panel and the panel consists of two outside people ... it could be a lawyer and some other person of another industry ... plus the industry representative. Me, I of course would be the industry representative. And that committee is really designed to protect the consumer, at least hear the complaint and make sure they have been treated fairly; if they've not been treated fairly, make sure they are awarded the proper amount of monies that make them whole.
Q: How long have you been doing that?
A: I have been an NASD arbitrator for about two years now.
Q: Have you heard many cases?
A: Just two so far, yes, sir. I've been to a lot of training, but only two cases.
Q: Well, that's good. I mean not any complaints apparently. How do you feel that you can help the state in the role of consumer affairs? What do you see your role as being?
A: My role as I see it if I was on the Consumer Affairs Commission is to make sure the consumer is protected from like, as you said, the big guy versus the little guy, because about in every case, the consumer ... in all cases is only the little person, not the big person. My job would be to make sure if they're not treated fairly, that it's remedied, and the person who had not treated them fairly would be dealt with accordingly. A consumer can be misled in many ways as we all know by television, newspaper ads and now the internet and things of that nature. It's gotten even bigger.
Q: Did you become interested on your own? I mean you just happened to see that this position had come available or did anyone encourage you to do it?
A: No, sir, I saw it in the paper on my own, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN: Questions from committee members?
SENATOR HAYES: Other than just what you've told us, do you have any other knowledge of the Department of Consumer Affairs or any agenda for what needs to be done?
A: Now, I know what their job is. Department of Consumer Affairs of course regulates anyone in the consumer credit industry and of course enforces the Consumer Protection Code. They're also the public advocate in hearings for regulatory agencies for control as you well know the utilities. They represent the public there. They are involved in licensing of pawn brokers, loan brokers, sport fitness centers, sports agents, long-term care facilities, staff leasing. I mean to me they cover a big gamut of what goes on in everyday life in this state.
SENATOR HAYES: Do you have an agenda on anything that needs to be done as far as what's not being done or anything of that sort?
A: Not that I'm particularly aware at this time, no, sir.
MR. MCMAHAND: Let me ask you, Mr. Henderson, what about your work schedule? Do you think you'll be able to meet the meetings without any problems?
A: Yes, sir, my schedule is fairly flexible. I'm a district director for Financial Securities, and where I serve as now, I am housed here and live here and work here day to day in Columbia, in fact right down the street here. I travel around to some of my other offices in the state and a couple in Georgia more or less at my convenience or when they may necessarily need something for me to be there for, so my schedule is very, very, very flexible, yes, sir. If I didn't feel like I could make not just most of the meetings, all of the meetings, I wouldn't put my name in the hat because if you can't be there, you don't need to be on the committee in my opinion.
Q: Mr. Henderson, tell us a little bit about your relationship with the Treasurer's Office, unclaimed securities and so forth if you would.
A: Yes, sir. The Treasurer's Office a few months back just ... I went out to all these securities and banks about the unclaimed properties division. They would have a lot of securities that would be claimed and some unclaimed, but the ones claimed ... say something that you owned and you saw your name in the paper, they need some broker transfer agent to take that security and re-register it in your name and ship it out to them, and that's basically what we're doing. They find someone that claims a security, they bring it over to our office, my operations department re-registers and ships it out to that person. There would be a point in time unclaimed securities, which just are not unclaimed, I guess after what, a three-year period ... is that what it is, I think? They would dispose those securities, sell the securities, which they would do through my office and we would issue checks to the state.
Q: Is it only your office that handles those for the Treasurer's Office?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How do you get that contract? Is that by bid?
A: One of my financial advisors, Fred Quattlebaum, actually put a proposal. It wasn't actually a bid, I guess you could call it a bid, but it's a proposal that was quite extent to the state as did most all firms in the city and they chose us.
Q: Do you have any questions?
A: I don't believe so. I think I've read enough. I think they meet once a month normally. Could be more than that as far as the commission. I've read a lot about what type of involvement they have been in and it seems to be very, very, very interesting. And I was listening a little while back, you said that it would be announced next Tuesday or Wednesday and the election on May 21st?
Q: What we'll do, and I tell each candidate, we don't recommend anyone. All we do is either find you qualified or unqualified to run for the position.
A: Right.
Q: And so we will make that decision and I'm sure for most people there's not going to be a problem as far as being qualified, and then we'll hopefully have the report out next Tuesday or Wednesday. The staff will call you personally and tell you that it has been filed, and as soon as you hear that, you're able to call legislators and seek commitments for yourself at that time. You cannot do that until that is filed and you're notified of that. That will get you in trouble.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: But we'll call you just as soon as that's done. I would approximate that to be probably Wednesday.
A: Middle of next week, all right, sir. And the election is the 21st ...
Q: 21st.
A: ... of May, okay. All right, sir.
Q: Again, I just want to thank you for your interest. It's good to see this number of people interested, and not only that, but there's a number of very qualified people. What I've seen so far is good qualified people with good backgrounds and all and we just appreciate you being here and having the interest that you do.
A: Well, I appreciate the committee's time and thank you a lot.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Henderson.
A: You have a good day.
Q: You too.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacInnis?
MR. MACINNIS: Yes, sir, good morning.
CHAIRMAN: Good morning. Have a seat there, please. Before we begin, we do need to put you under oath, so I'll ask you to raise your hand and the court reporter will swear you.
B.J. MACINNIS, having been duly sworn and testified as follows:
MR. MACINNIS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. MacInnis, again we appreciate your interest in this position. I appreciate you taking the time to come here and offer your time to serve the state of South Carolina. It's an important position. Before we really ask you any real questions about it, we'd just like to hear from you why you became interested in the position and what you feel your role would be serving on the Consumer Affairs Commission.
A: I became aware of the position through a friend who had seen I think an article in The State newspaper. I had expressed over the last few years some desire to work in the public sector. I've had a real supportive company that I have left and retired from just recently, very supportive of our work with charities, etcetera, but I didn't have an opportunity to get into the public sector, and when this became available, I decided that that was a good time to go ahead and try to see if I could have an opportunity to serve and to represent the public.
Q: What do you think would be your role? If you're elected to serve on the commission, what would be your role on that?
A: I have a great deal of background in the management and team-building efforts that we did within the company that I retired from. I think that I would be able to offer a lot there. I'd also be able to offer a statewide approach because I've dealt with and served our constituents, our customers from South Carolina Pipeline in 44 of the 46 counties of the state.
Q: What do you see the Consumer Affairs agency ... what does it do? Why do we even have it?
A: Well, I think that the commission on the policy-making and that authority that is granted to the commission to then go to the Department of Consumer Affairs is to protect the public, to provide the public with reasonable assurance that the goods and services that they purchase in the state are safe and are able to be used by them.
Q: Did anything happen to you personally that made you want to do this? I mean you're not mad at any company or anything like that that's happened?
A: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN: Does the committee have any questions to ask?
SENATOR HAYES: You are retired now from SCANA?
A: Yes, sir. It was one of the SCANA subsidiaries.
SENATOR HAYES: Other than what you've told us, do you have any agenda as far as what you think should be done or shouldn't be done by Department of Consumer Affairs?
A: Well, I think just from the ... I have knowledge of the Department of Consumer Affairs through the Public Service Commission, the CA's office, with their work down at the Public Service Commission. I think that from my limited knowledge that I would like to see the CA a little bit more visible and I'd like to see them involved in a few more things.
SENATOR HAYES: I have just one other question. Being retired, you wouldn't have any trouble attending the meetings I don't believe?
A: No, sir. That's why again, just to be able to have that time.
CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from the committee?
SENATOR HAYES: I notice you flew helicopters, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
SENATOR HAYES: Did you do that for your work?
A: Well, after I got out of the service, I took helicopter lessons locally in Saluda, South Carolina, and then John Warren, who was president of the company, decided that we needed a helicopter to patrol the right of way and over 1700 miles of high-pressure line in the state, and in 1973, the company bought the first. When I left, we had four helicopters. I got to fly it for about three and a half years and then in a limited basis until I retired, a very enjoyable part of my work.
SENATOR HAYES: Most people who fly fly fixed wing. You don't see a lot of helicopters outside the military.
A: Yes, sir, that's correct.
Q: Have you ever had any contact at all with Consumer Affairs?
A: Only through ... and at that time, it was Mr. Hamm at the Public Service Commission, and it was not a direct contact. I was in the operations side of it, not in the rates or any side that would be on the Public Service Commission other than from the safety issue.
Q: Do you have any questions you would like to ask the committee?
A: No, sir.
Q: Well, again we appreciate your interest, and frankly, including yourself, I'm really impressed with the quality of the people that have shown interest in this position.
A: Thank you.
Q: We had nine people apply and they seem to be very qualified and very interested in the position for the right reasons. So what we will do is make a finding of either qualified or unqualified. We don't actually make a recommendation of any one candidate or anything like that at all.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So we'll make that finding and hopefully we'll have that report filed about Wednesday of next week. As soon as that is done, the staff here will get in touch with you personally and let you know, and at that time you are able to contact legislators for commitments to vote for you. You cannot do that until you're notified that the report has been filed.
A: I understand, yes, sir.
Q: And other than that, we again thank you for coming and we'll be in touch as soon as that has been filed.
A: Thank you. I appreciate everybody's time this morning.
MR. MAYRANT: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayrant, how are you doing today?
MR. MAYRANT: Fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Good. Do you pronounce your last name Mayrant?
MR. MAYRANT: Mayrant, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN: Before we begin, Mr. Mayrant, I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand and let our reporter here swear you under oath.
LOUIS MAYRANT, JR., having been duly sworn and testified as follows:
MR. MAYRANT - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Mayrant, thank you again for coming. We have been really impressed so far and continue to be that we have so many really qualified people seeking this position. It is refreshing to see that and we appreciate you coming and your interest in it. And just to being with, we'd just like to hear a little bit from you about why you're interested in this position, how you became interested in it and what you feel like you can do, how you can help the state of South Carolina serving as a member of the commission.
A: I became interested in this position because I've been working in the field. I've worked in several different areas. I've been a consumer all my life. I've also been in the management and the retail business and I've been in the education department and I feel that I can serve well because I can really add something to the department. I believe in education and I feel like this is a helping profession and that's what I'm doing. I'm getting my master's in counseling education at South Carolina State University at present and I feel with the knowledge and the experience and the background that I'm going through that I can be a very great asset to this department. As I said, the department is concerned with helping people, serving the consumer, and trying to encourage fairness among the consumer at the same time with the merchants. And I've been in the merchant position also a merchant and I feel that I could bridge that little gap between there to make a better relationship, make my community better, the state, and the country a better country.
Q: Well, it's important that anyone serving in this position have an understanding of course of what consumers undergo and the kind of problems that they encounter out there sometimes when they are treated unfairly or at least they feel they're treated unfairly and so forth. But having a knowledge of what the merchant sees also is important, so that's good that you have a perspective from both sides. What do you see the role of the commission to be though? Do you see it as a consumer protector or do you see it as a neutral type of relationship or how do you view that?
A: Well, I view ... the consumer commission's job is to really look at all aspects of it, to really evaluate, to review and pass the decision on certain aspects of, you know, what's going on with the consumers out there. Otherwise, you have to really diagnose the problem first, not take side with either one to say, you know, this person is incorrect or either the merchant is always wrong. You have to really balance and weigh both sides and come up with a reasonable answer, you know, that will be comfortable for everybody because we want to make our state a better state, better community.
CHAIRMAN: Questions from the committee?
MR. MCMAHAND: I have one, I guess, and that relates to meeting the meetings.
A: Meetings what?
MR. MCMAHAND: Meeting the meetings, your schedule. Can you meet whenever the commission is going to meet?
A: Yes, sir, I have no problem with that. I basically work with a membership organization and we work by appointments and most of them are in the evening time, you know, when people are home, so it's not an eight to five job. I have a lot of free time and I can basically work my schedule anyway I want to.
Q: Mr. Mayrant, we've asked the others the same question. Do you have anything that's happened to you that maybe gives you any ax to grind or anything like that, anything bad that you feel has happened to you that would make you interested in the position other than just wanting to serve?
A: I haven't had anything bad happen to me that, you know, really prompted me to seek this position. I think that as a citizen of America, I'm very interested in helping. I'm very interested to see that we have a better community, a better state, and when you are a go-getter or a leader, then you can't sit back and just hold your hands, so I'm very motivated and I feel with this position I could help a lot of people; not only help, but try to bridge the gap between both aspects of it.
CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
Q: Well, again, I want to thank you for your interest, and every time somebody comes in I'm just like a broken record, but we're just really impressed with the quality of the people that have applied for this position and we're glad to see that we have some really quality people that are interested. And what we do, our role is not to recommend any one person or persons for the position. We simply make findings of whether you are qualified to seek the position or not and we'll do that hopefully by Wednesday of next week. Until that time, you cannot seek commitments from any legislators. That would be a violation of the rules. But hopefully we'll have that done about Wednesday and the staff will contact you personally to tell you that the report has been filed, and then once it is, you're free then to contact any senator or House member to seek that commitment for you. And we just wish you the best of luck and again thank you that you're willing to give your time to this, because serving in a position like this is an honor, but I assure you it's a great responsibility and it does take sacrifice in serving if you do it right. But we want to thank you for coming and thank you for your interest and we'll get in touch with you sometime about the middle of next week.
A: I thank you all for really considering me for this position. Thank you all. You all have a good day.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: How are you doing, sir?
MR. POWELL: Fine. You?
CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you. Before we begin, I'm going to ask our court reporter to put you under oath and so if you will, just face her and raise your right hand, please.
AUBREY L. POWELL, having been duly sworn and testified as follows:
MR. POWELL - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Powell, we appreciate you coming today and we appreciate your interest in this position and your willingness to serve and give your time. I see on your summary here that you graduated from Limestone College?
A: Correct.
Q: Is that through an outreach type program of some kind?
A: They had a course in Columbia. They taught in Columbia through the university and I've got an associate's degree from Midlands Tech.
Q: Well, I went to Limestone one summer school when I first got out of high school is the reason I ask and I grew up in Gaffney where Limestone is located.
A: Got a beautiful campus up there.
Q: Tell us a little bit about how you became interested in this position and why you'd like to serve?
A: Well, I've been a consumer for a long time and I have ... I think we all think that there's something that can be done better. Being consumers, we often have complaints. There are good things and bad points and I think since I retired three and a half years ago, I've been wanting to serve the county and the state and city where I live, you know, in a better capacity. I was an unsuccessful candidate for Lexington County School Board Five last year and that intrigued my interest in government affairs, and I've served on several committees and so forth for the school district and I'm a volunteer in a number of organizations. This is where I've spent most of my time since I retired, in volunteering where I think I can be most effective.
Q: You worked for the South Carolina Tax Commission for several years?
A: Correct.
Q: What was your position there?
A: I was an auditor supervisor and handled a lot of taxpayers' problems, complaints, questions and so forth. This is what I did most of the years.
Q: Taxpayer complaints?
A: Right.
Q: Resolving problems they had, that kind of thing?
A: Correct.
Q: What would you see your role as being as a member of the commission?
A: An advocate for justice, a person that could in my own unique way try to solve some of the situations that might arise to try to be a ... try to resolve things that are problems for people. And we often have complaints and so forth that we think are complaints and they can be resolved by mediation, by sitting down and talking or by some other means rather than going to legal ramifications.
Q: Have you ever had any contact with the consumer advocate in the past?
A: I've filed a few complaints, some successful and in my favor, and some against me, so ...
Q: What kind of complaints just in general?
A: Just minor complaints whenever I felt I'd been done an injustice. And I had a big complaint which settled in the other person's favor, which I still think I was right with a Columbia business and I think they're paying the price of it now because, you know, the things I said was true and it's proven to be true by the way they treat customers now.
Q: How long has it been since you've had a complaint with the commission?
A: About four years.
Q: Would you mind describing what you felt like and how you were treated and so forth when those complaints were filed?
A: I bought a computer from a local business and they did not live up to the warranty. They said certain things about, you know, taking the computer apart and having it repaired. They didn't want at that time to even look at the machine and the parts which they manufactured were not new parts, they were used parts by other people have told me since then, and it is a business that I would have no dealings with today.
Q: But I mean what I was asking you is as far as your dealings with the consumer advocate.
A: Oh, very good. I found the people to be very helpful, very willing to assist you in any way possible and I found the people ... although, you know, all the things I've ... few I've filed have not been in my favor, I appreciated the action. And for the people of South Carolina to have such a committee or commission on this type of thing for the consumer and also for the public I think is very important and I think we are miles above others, other states that I've seen and heard.
CHAIRMAN: Questions from the committee or staff?
Q: Mr. Powell, you are retired, so I assume you have available time and all?
A: Yes, and I'm one of those people that have to keep out of my wife's way so that I can continue to live.
Q: She's pulling for you real strongly I assume then?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, again, we just want to thank you that you are interested in the position and tell you how impressed we are so far with the people that we've seen, that we have such quality people that are interested. Of course, as of right now, you cannot seek commitments from any legislator.
A: You cannot?
Q: You cannot. You can't do that until the report has been filed and that should be done about Wednesday of next week. Once it is filed, the staff will call you personally to tell you that it is filed and that you are free at that time to seek commitments. It's all right to send out information and so forth, but you cannot actually ask for anybody to vote or anybody to commit to help you in any way as far as a legislator goes.
A: I'm glad you told me that because I was getting ready to start on it today.
Q: No, sir, you would be in violation of the rules and that would get you in trouble. We hopefully will have this out though Wednesday of next week and then the election is not until the 21st, so that will give you two weeks. Everybody will be on legal ground at that point as far as seeking commitments and all, so as soon as we make that decision, we'll contact you as I said and let you know and then you're free to start doing that. Our role in this is not to pick who we think is the best candidate or anything like that at all. We don't make a recommendation to the legislature. We simply either find you qualified to run for the position or unqualified, and then once we make that decision, we file it and we notify you on that point. So you should hear from us probably Wednesday of next week, okay? Do you have any questions?
A: No. I would enjoy serving on this committee and whether I'm selected or not, I thank you for the opportunity to come here today and I look forward to serving.
Q: We do appreciate you coming and you being willing to serve and we wish you the best of luck.
A: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preston?
MR. PRESTON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN: How are you doing, sir?
MR. PRESTON: Real good.
CHAIRMAN: Good. Have a seat there, make yourself comfortable. Before we begin, we need to place you under oath, so I'll ask you to face the court reporter there and she'll swear you in.
MR. PRESTON: Do I need to stand?
CHAIRMAN: No, you can just sit will be fine.
WILLIAM RAY PRESTON, having been duly sworn and testified as follows:
MR. PRESTON - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Preston, these people here are going to get tired of hearing me say it, but I want to tell you that we're really impressed so far with the quality of people that are interested in this position and we appreciate your interest in this position and the willingness to serve and the background that we see in your summary here. We'd really like to hear from you a little bit about how you became interested in the position and why you would like to serve.
A: I stumbled onto it actually in the newspaper. I saw it in there and I had an interest to be of service to the public and I actually thought that the Consumer Affairs Commission would be a good avenue for me given my background. I have 18 years experience in insurance, sales and underwriting and I deal with the general public on a daily basis. So I thought that given the two, they would go good together and it would give me that opportunity to do that public service that I wanted to do.
Q: How do you feel you would contribute? What do you see the role of the commission being?
A: I see it being a consumer advocate. I see it where the consumer is coming to the commission as a last ditch effort to make something right that they feel was done wrong, either in a service or a product that they were involved in. I see the commission trying to set some examples of how they feel things should be handled with the consumer, maintaining the high quality of life in South Carolina based on maintaining a high moral business attitude.
Q: It sounds like you see it as being consumer-oriented, your position there.
A: I see it as a two-way street. I see it as it's got to be for business, too. So in answer to your question, no, it would be both ways.
Q: I notice in your summary that you have worked with the volunteer fire department. Where was that?
A: That was in Illinois.
Q: I was mayor of a town for about 10 years and I worked with the volunteer fire department, good and bad, but tell me a little bit about that.
A: My exposure there was a small town outside the city that I actually lived in and basically it was brush fires, small house fires. There was nothing of any ...
Q: But you were an actual volunteer fireman?
A: I was an actual volunteer fireman?
Q: I really respect people who do that and that's a real commitment and a lot of sacrifice and of course exposure and I appreciate that in a person that does that. My department, of course they didn't understand sometimes why we didn't have the money to build new buildings and buy three or four new trucks and all that from time to time, but we got along well and they did a great job. But I do respect people who are willing to donate their time like that for that. Do you have any questions from us?
A: No, I don't.
Q: What we're doing of course is not trying to make a determination as to who the best candidate is or anything like that. That's not our role. We simply find you qualified to run for the position or unqualified. Once we make that finding and file that, then you're free to seek commitments from members of the Senate and members of the House to vote for you. You cannot do that until that report has been filed. That would be a violation of the rules, okay?
A: Okay.
Q: So we will hopefully have that out about the middle of next week. We're looking at Wednesday we hope, but we will call you. Either James here or some member of the staff will call you to tell you that the report has been filed, and then once it has, then you're free to call and seek commitments at that time.
A: Okay.
Q: Again, thanks for your interest.
A: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions, Mr. McMahand?
MR. MCMAHAND: No.
Q: And we wish you the best of luck and just appreciate you willing to offer for the position.
A: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ross?
MRS. ROSS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Have a seat there and make yourself comfortable. How are you doing this morning?
MRS. ROSS: Fine. How are you?
CHAIRMAN: Good. Thank you for coming this morning.
MRS. ROSS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN: Before we begin, this won't take long and it won't hurt. We'd just like to put you under oath, so if you will face the court reporter, she'll administer the oath to you.
KATHY KERN ROSS, having been duly sworn and testified as follows:
MRS. ROSS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mrs. Ross, I think I have told everyone so far how impressed we are with the quality of the applicants. It's refreshing to see people with the backgrounds that each of you so far have had and such an interest in this position, and I think every candidate has had either a master's degree or is working on one and that's good to see and we're happy to see that. So thank you for being willing to serve and being willing to dedicate your time because it is a sacrifice. Before we ask you any real questions, would you tell us a little bit about how you became interested in the position and why you want to submit to that sacrifice?
A: Well, throughout my adult life I've always had a strong interest in consumer affairs. I try to become educated in things in that area. I believe in education of the consumer and also the empowerment of the consumer to excel in the area of consumer affairs. I believe that I'm an organized person and a detail-oriented person, so I think as far as the committee goes, I would be able to serve and be very successful in that position. And I'm just a regular citizen; not that anybody isn't, but I'm just an average person and I can bring my background and my experiences and shed some light maybe where other people haven't seen.
Q: Well, you're obviously a very bright person, a 3.8 GPA in your MA degree I think is very impressive. You are it looks like in the fine arts area of entertainment or theater or what are you ...
A: Currently I am the president of Kaleidoscope Entertainment, Incorporated. It's an entertainment company. We book entertainers for colleges, for their student activities around the country as well as for local corporations and company picnics, things like that. We book entertainers for conventions, lectures, things like that.
Q: That's here in Columbia?
A: Here in Columbia, yes. It's a home office, actually, which is another aspect I think would enlighten the committee somewhat, is somebody that's working out of their home now. I think that's an emerging area. I also believe strongly in volunteering your time for your community and giving back to your community and I feel that it's important for everybody in the community to do that and I'm able at this time to dedicate my time and my energies and my efforts towards that.
Q: That was a question that was going to be coming up in a minute is how flexible is your work schedule so that you can make meetings and so forth.
A: Very flexible. I run my own company, so I don't have to ask for time off. I set my own calendar. I don't have a problem with traveling if that needs be. I have no children and, you know, I can pretty much set my schedule and do what needs to be done.
Q: You've been active in Big Brothers/Big Sisters?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you get involved in that?
A: I started actually back when I was in college and I started volunteering my time for that.
Q: Two of my daughters are involved in that. It's a good program. And I see you've got a CPR, Red Cross Lifesaving and so forth?
A: Yes.
Q: What brought that?
A: I've been doing that since high school actually. I started as a lifeguard when I was 16 and I was working full time after school at the local Y and I continued through my college years. I was a lifeguard throughout college and then I actually ... my summers during college and actually graduate school, I was the waterfront director for a camp in the Berkshire mountains of Massachusetts. And it was a 200 acre lake, it was an all-boys camp, and I was the waterfront director and it was a wonderful experience.
Q: How long have you been in South Carolina now?
A: Exactly four years in March.
Q: Gotten acclimated okay?
A: Yeah, I really like it.
Q: You haven't gotten the accent quite yet.
A: No, no.
Q: Do you have any questions about what you will be doing and so forth?
A: I actually had sent away for the government to get the Consumer Affair booklet and received that and I've been reading up on that and it's very enlightening. I understand that we would come to meetings about once a month, is that correct, and work closely with your representatives, is that true?
A: Well, you work with the consumer advocate and certainly set policy and so forth there, and he meets with different committees of the legislature and provides information and we review that.
Q: Do they directly handle concerns that consumers have had, any complaints or things like that?
A: The agency does and of course your role would not be directly involved in that, although you may from time to time hear from a citizen that has a particular problem. They may call upon you. That happens to us sometimes, you know, too, but it's not our direct responsibility. But it sounds like you're flexible enough that you can make meetings if they're called out of schedule and so forth?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you ever had any contact with the consumer advocate in the past?
A: No.
Q: And no complaints or anything against the agency?
A: No.
Q: Had nothing happen personally that you have an ax to grind against any particular company or anything like that?
A: No.
Q: Just interested in serving?
A: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from the committee?
Q: Mrs. Ross, again, and I mean this sincerely, we appreciate that you are willing to serve. We appreciate the quality of people that we have that are interested here today. I just want to kind of reiterate to you that you cannot seek commitments at this time for the position. You can't do that until our findings are made and are filed. Our role is not to recommend anyone for the position. We simply find you qualified to run for the position or unqualified and we'll make that finding probably by Wednesday and file that report. When we file that, our staff here will contact you personally to tell you that it has been filed, and at that time you're free to contact senators and House members and to seek commitments for the position, okay? Don't do that until then. Don't want to get you in any trouble, okay?
A: Well, I appreciate your time and my consideration.
Q: Thank you again for coming. We appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Skipper, have a seat there and make yourself at home, sir.
MR. SKIPPER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Before we begin, we need to place you under oath, so I'm going to ask you to face the court reporter and she'll put you under oath, please.
RONALD G. SKIPPER, having been duly sworn and testified as follows:
MR. SKIPPER - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Skipper, this is no new role for you. You've been serving now for about two years I guess and you've been through the process, so you know what our role is and so forth. I guess since you have already been in the position, we'd just like to hear a little bit from you about what kind of job you think the commission is doing and the consumer advocate is doing.
A: During my first year, the advocate was elected by the commissioners, Mr. Phil Porter, and he has done an outstanding job, but I look at it as a team. There is Mr. Phil Porter and Mr. Herbert Walker. I think they together make that agency progress further, a lot further than what it's ever been. I have really enjoyed it. I look forward to going back in. The commission has made great headway in exposure in the lower state that I've had a part ... had the privilege of participating in getting that exposure of Consumer Affairs in the lower state.
Q: What is the role of the consumer advocate in your opinion?
A: The consumer advocate is the voice of the people in opposing or supporting private industry or utilities. Anything that would be contrary or detrimental to the consumers, the advocate is the voice of the consumer before the Public Service Commission. They speak in behalf of the consumers and the attorneys speak in behalf of, for instance, CP&L on a rate increase. If the Consumer Affairs Department feels that it's an unjustified increase, then our advocate would go over before the public service commission at a hearing and be the voice of the people.
Q: What is your role as a member of the commission?
A: As a commissioner, we receive reports, monthly reports from the staff of the Department of Consumer Affairs and we set policy that the staff implements. We get involved in decision-making when it comes to whether we're going to extend our support or extend our point of view in behalf of the consumers on a particular issue. That is a monthly meeting and that's where the decisions are made at.
Q: Do you see any areas that you think that the agency could improve?
A: With funding, there is great opportunity for improvement.
Q: If there were more funding, what kinds of things do you feel are needed to be done?
A: More staff. I have seen over the last three years the large increase of complaints by consumers across the state and they're still operating at the staff that they had as of five years ago.
Q: Are you seeing any particular pattern of complaints or area of complaints?
A: Yes.
Q: What are those?
A: The most complaint month after month over the last three years has been with auto dealers. The second highest category is with financial institutions.
Q: Automobile dealers in that the car didn't work like they claim it should have or something?
A: Well, it covers from automobile dealers to automotive mechanics to rentals, anything to do with automotive. There's complaints about rental agreements, there's complaints ... since they got the lemon law passed, there's been an increase in that as the consumers become aware that they are protected under the lemon law and we're very thankful that the legislators passed that law. The second highest category is financial institutions and normally that has to do with interest rates. But we're seeing right now this year, and I know that you've seen it in the Columbia area, where you have these loan brokers. They are called car title loans. That's kind of getting around what the purpose of the automotive loan is for. People will take their title to the car and they don't actually take a lien against it, but they hold the title and they loan these people money. That is not entirely the correct way to do it and we are looking at that right now. As of our last meeting, we have seen 12 of these type of businesses pop up in this area, and in my area I have counted five, and they're springing up like overnight.
Q: So they're making personal loans and they just hold the title to the car?
A: It's like a personal loan, but they're holding the title. There's no lien taken against it because, you know, if a lien is taken against it, then the person has to get collision insurance to protect the lender. They're getting around that particular issue and we're looking at it to see if that is a fair business transaction for the consumer. We're looking at that real strong right now. I see the commission as the voice of the people and by the people for the people, and to serve on it you really have to be concerned. And when I stood before you three years ago, I shared with you my concerns on the local level, my involvement in my community and all, and I have still emphasized that and I have expanded that to a state level by serving as a commissioner on this board. Hartsville as you know was elected an All-America City just last year. I had help in that also. I worked closely with Mike Baxley, Denny Nelson, Jessie Hines and Ed Saleeby, my state senator, in getting the word out so to speak to the people in the greater Pee Dee area. I try to serve all the people of the state, but if I can be an impact locally, I do that. We have five newspapers right now that run my monthly article and it's just a very small article, but it states what the Commission on Consumer Affairs has done for the previous month. It tells them how many complaints were filed and it tells the consumers how many of them were resolved satisfactorily to the consumer's benefit and it tells them how much money was collected and then we give them a little tip of the month.
Q: Well, that's commendable and we appreciate you making that effort.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the committee?
Q: Mr. Skipper, we appreciate the service that you've given and your willingness to continue to serve. As you know, we don't make any recommendations or anything. We simply find you qualified to run again for the position or not. We hope to have that out and filed by next Wednesday, and as you know also, you cannot seek any commitments at this time until that is actually filed. As soon as it is filed, we will be in touch with you personally to tell you that it has been filed, and then of course you may contact the senators and House members and seek commitments at that time and that will probably be Wednesday of next week.
A: Okay.
Q: Thank you again for your service and coming and your willingness to continue serving.
A: Thank you. You all have a good day.
(There being nothing further, the screening of candidates concluded at 10:10 a.m.)
Summary
The following persons were unanimously found qualified for Seat #1 on the SC Consumer Affairs Commission:
Seat #1 with term to expire August 31, 2001
Mr. Reese E. Griffin
Mr. Landrum H. Henderson, Jr.
Mr. B. J. MacInnis
Mr. Louis Mayrant, Jr.
Mr. Aubrey Powell
Mr. William R. Preston
Mrs. Kathy Kern Ross
Mr. Ron G. Skipper
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator C. Tyrone Courtney, Chairman
/s/Senator Robert W. Hayes, Jr.
/s/Senator Glenn G. Reese
/s/Senator Dick Elliott
/s/Representative George Bailey
/s/Representative James N. Law
/s/Representative Teddy N. Trotter
/s/Representative Willie B. McMahand
On motion of Senator COURTNEY, with unanimous consent, the Report of the Joint Committee to Screen Candidates for the Consumer Affairs Commission was ordered printed in the Journal.
Date Draft Report Issued: Friday, May 15, 1998
at 3:00 p.m.
Date and Time Final Report Issued: Sunday, May 17, 1998
at 3:00 p.m.
Judicial candidates are not free to seek
The following chart includes a list of all candidates. If the candidate has a "*" symbol under a category (i.e. Academic Ability), that symbol indicates that the Commission expressed concern about the candidate in that area. The placement of a "*" symbol is not, in and of itself, an indication of a candidates' failure to comply with the Commission's established criteria.
These abbreviations were used in the following chart:
Const. Qual., Constitutional Qualifications
Prac. & Proc., Practice and Procedure
Acad. Ability, Academic Ability
Char., Character
Rep., Reputation
Phy. Hth, Physical Health
Men. Hth, Mental Health
Exp., Experience
Temp., Temperament
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. The Commission has carefully investigated the candidates currently set for screening and found eleven candidates qualified for judicial office. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission is operating under its new law which went into effect July 1, 1997, and which has dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. Furthermore, the Commission is required to submit no more than three names for any particular judicial race; therefore, for two races the Commission was required to pare the number of candidates presented for consideration by the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started previously. The Commission has asked Family Court candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on that particular court. These questions were posed in an effort to provide the members of the General Assembly more information about candidates and their thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.
In assessing each candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or the "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
The Commission has also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. The Commission was concerned that since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees composed of people from a broad range of experience (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for varied organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds) were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a confidential report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these confidential reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted.
The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; physical health; mental health; and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1) survey of the bench and bar;
(2) SLED and FBI investigation;
(3) credit investigation;
(4) grievance investigation;
(5) study of application materials;
(6) verification of ethics compliance;
(7) search of newspaper articles;
(8) conflict of interest investigation;
(9) court schedule study;
(10) study of appellate record;
(11) court observation; and
(12) investigation of complaints.
While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact on a candidate's fitness for judicial service.
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 Irma R. Pringle or John P. Hazzard, V at 212-6610 or Elizabeth Atwater at 734-3125.
This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court, Masters-in-Equity, and the Administrative Law Judge Division.
•Denotes information taken verbatim from the candidate's personal data questionnaire that was submitted by the candidate as a part of the application process.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Prickett meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Mr. Prickett was born on March 3, 1950. He is 48 years old and a resident of St. Matthews, South Carolina. Mr. Prickett provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since November 1975.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Prickett.
Mr. Prickett demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Prickett 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. Prickett testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Prickett to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Prickett described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a) SC Association of Counties Annual Seminar - 1993;
(b) SC Association of Counties Attorneys Institute - 1993;
(c) SC Bar - This Was The Year That Was 1993;
(d) SCTLA Annual Convention - 1994, 1995;
(e) SCAC County & Municipal Attorney's Institute - 1994;
(f) CISI SC Elder Law & Medicaid Planning - 1995;
(g) SCTLA Auto Torts XIX - 1996;
(h) SC Bar Basic office Computer Systems - 1997; and
(I) SC Association of Counties - Legal Issue of Counties 1997.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Prickett did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Prickett did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Prickett has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Prickett was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Prickett reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Prickett appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Prickett appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Prickett was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in November 1975.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Prickett worked as a paralegal with the law firm of Gressette & Gressette until he was admitted to the Bar in November 1975. Upon admission to the Bar, he was hired and worked as an associate for the same law firm, working for L. Marion Gressette and Lawrence M. Gressette. In 1980, he was made a partner. The firm's name was changed to Gressette & Prickett. Lawrence M. Gressette left the firm in 1983, and Mr. Prickett continued to practice with L. Marion Gressette until his death in 1984. Mr. Prickett maintained his own practice until 1990, when he joined with John G. Felder and Charles W. Whetstone to form Felder, Prickett & Whetstone.
Mr. Prickett's firm is now practicing as Felder, Prickett & McGee, LLP. Mr. Prickett has been practicing law in Calhoun County, South Carolina, for his entire legal career of 22 years. The firm is a small town general practice. He handles all types of real estate transactions and closings, and is an approved attorney and agent for Lawyers Title Insurance Company. In that capacity he deals with all banks and financial institutions making real estate loans in Calhoun and Orangeburg counties. He prepares deeds, mortgages, wills, and Powers of Attorney, as well as other business legal documents. He also practices in the Probate Court and handles civil and criminal matters.
Mr. Prickett has had 20 years' experience handling Workers' Compensation cases for both employers and claimants. He has represented several self-insured Workers' Compensation funds including Merchant's Association and Automobile Dealer's Association. He has appealed Workers' Compensation cases.
He also has 20 years' experience appearing before the South Carolina Public Service Commission handling regulatory matters and has represented both applicants and protestants in trucking authority cases. His firm represented Southeastern Freight Lines for many years on all regulatory matters before the Public Service Commission.
He has been the attorney for Calhoun County for the last ten years, representing the County Council on all legal matters including litigation involving the county, issuing of bonds for county operations and capital improvements. He has appeared before state regulatory agencies and drafted ordinances and resolutions for County Council. He provides legal advice for the Calhoun County Tax Assessor and other county agencies with the exception of law enforcement.
His general practice gives him a wide range of legal experience. Many of the administrative and regulatory issues are handled by the Circuit Court on appeal.
Mr. Prickett reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) Federal: Few
(b) State: Often
(c) Other: He has appeared before the Workers' Compensation Commission and the Public Service Commission on a regular basis.
Mr. Prickett reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 50%
(b) Criminal: 20%
(c) Domestic: 30%
Mr. Prickett reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 10%
(b) Non-jury: 90%
Mr. Prickett provided that he served as sole or chief counsel.
•The following is Mr. Prickett's account of his most significant litigated matters:
(a) State v. Irick, 94-GS-38-1461; 94-GS-38-1462; 94-GS-38-1463 (Not reported). The defendant in this case was indicted on one count of Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and two counts of Murder. The case was tried in January 1996 in Orangeburg General Sessions Court before Honorable Victor Rawl. The defendant was found Not Guilty on all counts by a jury after several days of trial.
The case is significant because it covered many evidentiary matters and issues in criminal defense, including dying declarations, severance, Brady motions, bond hearings, request for exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence.
(b) State v. Pipkin, 294 S.C. 336, 364 S.E.2d 464 (1988)
I represented James Pipkin on a Driving Under the Influence charge in General Sessions Court, Orangeburg County. The defendant was convicted at trial and I appealed his conviction to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Prior to taking testimony, the trial judge heard a Motion to Suppress the results of both the breathalyser and the blood test since the blood sample was sent to SLED for analysis. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and mandated a suppression of both the breathalyser and blood test results.
This case was significant because it determined that a defendant charged with Driving Under the Influence was only required to submit to one examination by the State of his blood alcohol content and thus was entitled to retain possession of blood drawn during an independent test which he had requested after having submitted to a breathalyser test.
(c) State v. Dasher, 298 S.E.2d 215, 278 S.C. 454; 297 S.E.2d 414, 278 S.C. 395
I, along with L. Marion Gressette, represented Leon J. Dasher. Mr. Dasher was a police officer who was indicted on two separate indictments alleging criminal conspiracy to transport, store, and distribute a controlled substance. In the first indictment, the overt acts alleged cited my client with the financing of the importation and distribution of cocaine, and in the second indictment the overt acts alleged cited the financing of the importation and distribution of marijuana. Both indictments alleged conspiracy during overlapping periods with the same individuals. Dasher was found guilty at trial of the crime of criminal conspiracy. This conviction was overturned by the trial judge on a Motion for Judgment non obstante veredicto. The State appealed and the case was significant because it established the right of the State to appeal such a verdict. However, a separate trial judge dismissed the second indictment on the grounds that it violated the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. The State appealed again and the Supreme Court sustained the dismissal of the second indictment. The second case was significant because the prosecution of the defendant under the second conspiracy indictment was barred by former jeopardy because both indictments charged them and others with conspiring to transport, store with intent to distribute, and distribute certain quantities of controlled substances with the dates of conspiracies overlapping, the principals involved in alleged conspiracies were substantially the same, and the alleged conspiracies involved transporting drugs into same place.
(d) David J. Rogers v. Yvonne D. Rogers, Memorandum Opinion No. 90-MO-169 Filed November 2, 1990.
I represented Yvonne D. Rogers, the respondent in a domestic action to terminate and/or modify alimony on the basis that after the divorce, Yvonne established a relationship with a man tantamount to marriage. In a detailed Order, the Family Court judge found that the evidence fell short of establishing a relationship tantamount to marriage with her admitted paramour. The petitioner appealed the Order and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Order of the trial judge.
(e) John B. Rembert, et al. v. Mary Sims Gressette, et al., 458 S.E.2d 552 (S.C. App. 1995)
I represented Mary Sims Gressette and Cherry Sims Rembert in protracted litigation involving the distribution of a trust, approval of commission of attorney's fees, and for damages for mismanagement of trust by relatives of my client, Case No. 90-CP-38-867. The case was tried before the Honorable J. Derham Cole on May 19-22, 1992.
The case denying damages and upholding the actions of the trustees was appealed. The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that (1) trustee was not personally at fault for any alleged mismanagement of trust assets; (2) award of trustee commissions was reasonable; and (3) no abuse of discretion resulted from ordering payment of attorney fees from trust.
The case was significant because it held that residuary beneficiaries were barred from asserting claims against original trustee for alleged mismanagement of trust assets given that beneficiaries benefitted from an agreement with my clients that resulted in the alleged mismanagement and that laches applied given that beneficiaries delayed in making claims until after the death of the trustees involved in making the disputed decisions.
•Mr. Prickett listed five civil appeals which he has personally handled as follows:
(a) Shuler v. Crook, 290 S.C. 538, 351 S.E.2d 862 (1986);
(b) Weatherford v. Longstreet Farms, WCC File No. 9227631 and 9546759;
(c) Rogers v. Rogers, Supreme Court Docket 89-760, Memorandum Opinion No. 90-MO-169;
(d) Rembert, et al. v. Gressette, et al., 458 S.E.2d 552 (S.C. App.1995);
(e) Mielish v. The Legends Group, WCC No. 9332587.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Prickett's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Prickett is married to Carol Crook Prickett. He has three children: Ashley Claire Prickett (student at Clemson University, age 21); Elizabeth Jenelle Prickett (student in high school, age 18); and Fairey Lee Prickett, III (student in high school, age 17).
Mr. Prickett reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association - 1975 to present;
(b) American Bar Association - 1975 to 1990;
(c) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association - 1985 to present, Board of Directors from 1991-1997;
Mr. Prickett provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) First Baptist Church, St. Matthews, South Carolina (Past Deacon and currently serving on the Finance Committee);
(b) Clemson University Board of Visitors (1994-1996);
(c) Calhoun County Public Defender Corporation Board (President 1988-present).
Mr. Prickett reported that he served without pay on the Calhoun Academy Board of Directors from 1984 to 1997. The Academy is a non-profit eleemosynary corporation which operates a school, grades K-3 through 12, in St. Matthews, South Carolina.
•Mr. Prickett stated, "I was a Boy Scout awarded the Eagle Scout Badge. I served as a Scout Master of Troop 62 in St. Matthews, South Carolina, for several years. I have also coached Mite baseball. Additionally, I am a past President of the St. Matthews Rotary Club, and past President of the Calhoun Country Club. I am also a past member of the Board of Directors for Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Walsh meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Mr. Walsh was born on April 22, 1945. He is 52 years old and a resident of Orangeburg, South Carolina. Mr. Walsh provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
Mr. Walsh demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Walsh testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Walsh testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Walsh to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Walsh provided that during the previous five years, he completed 70.83 hours of continuing legal education and 11.8 hours in ethics. Areas of study were:
(a) Eminent Domain and Land Valuation;
(b) Employment and Labor Law;
(c) Better Client Relations;
(d) Limited Liability Companies;
(e) Special Purpose Districts;
(f) Municipal Franchises;
(g) Administrative Law Division Procedural Rules;
(h) S. C. Tort Claims Act;
(I) Rules of Civil Procedure;
(j) Liability for Serving Alcohol;
(k) Recognizing Hearsay;
(l) The Whistleblower Act;
(m) Fair Labor Standards Act;
(n) Wetlands and Coastal Zone Management;
(o) Legal Ethics and Real Life;
(p) Sexual Harassment;
(q) The Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Mr. Walsh reported that he had briefed municipal attorneys on the status of then-pending litigation of City of Orangeburg v. Jones Intercable, which involved the entry of a municipality into cable television. He also briefed attorneys about the City of Orangeburg v. Southern Bell, which involved the requirement of a franchise to provide local telephone service in a municipality, the amount of the franchise fee and the sources of revenue on which the fee was to be calculated.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Walsh did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Walsh did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Walsh has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Walsh was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Walsh provided that he had served in the South Carolina Air National Guard from 1968-1974 in the position of S.SGT. He received an Honorable Discharge.
Mr. Walsh reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
Mr. Walsh reported that he was appointed City Attorney for the City of Orangeburg in 1984 and is still serving in that capacity.
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Walsh appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Walsh appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Walsh was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
After graduating from law school, Mr. Walsh worked with C. Walker Limehouse, P.A. from 1971 to 1976. He practiced in residential real estate and prosecution in Municipal Court. From 1976 to 1985, he worked with Limehouse & Walsh. Mr. Walsh reduced his practice in the area of residential real estate and concentrated more in trial work, probate, corporate, governmental law and prosecution in Municipal Court. From 1985 to the present, he has been with James F. Walsh, Jr., P. A. and Limehouse & Walsh, working in real estate, with a concentration in commercial and development, probate, civil trial, governmental law and prosecution in Municipal Court.
Mr. Walsh reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) Federal: no more than once a year
(b) State: monthly
(c) Other: municipal and lower courts - monthly
Mr. Walsh reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 70%
(b) Criminal: 30%
(c) Domestic: 0%
Mr. Walsh reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 70%
(b) Non-jury: 30%
Mr. Walsh provided that he usually acted as sole counsel.
•The following is Mr. Walsh's account of his most significant litigated matters:
(a) Israel v. Carolina Bar-B-Que, Inc., (S.C.App) 292 S.C. 282, 356 S.E.2d 123 (1987). This case involved the novel question as to whether or not an adjoining property owner with knowledge of a defective or unsound natural tree on his property is liable for injuries to an invitee of the adjacent property owner sustained as the result of the fall of said defective tree and is still cited as authority in Am Jur 2d, Premises Liability, Sec.690. (Represented Israel)
(b) City of Orangeburg v. Carter, 303 S.C. 291, 400 S.E.2d 141 (S.C.1991). This case is often cited as authority for the proposition that the prosecution does not have to prove impairment of both the mental and physical faculties of a defendant to sustain a conviction of driving under the influence. (Represented City of Orangeburg)
(c) Culler v. Helena Chemical Company. This case is significant to me because I represented the plaintiff and obtained what I believe is still the largest jury verdict in an agricultural crop loss case in Orangeburg County. (Represented Culler)
(d) Sheppard v. City of Orangeburg, ____ S.C.____, 442 S.E.2d 601 (S.C. 1994). This case had statewide significance because the Court held that municipalities in South Carolina do not have constitutional nor statutory authority to own and operate a cable television system. (Represented City of Orangeburg with co-counsel)
(e) Owens, et al. v. City Council of Orangeburg, South Carolina, et al. This case was significant to me because it established single-member electoral districts in the City of Orangeburg and I am of the opinion that as City Attorney I played a role in the smooth and orderly transition of government and the public's acceptance of same. (Represented City of Orangeburg with co-counsel).
•Mr. Walsh listed five civil appeals that he has personally handled as follows:
(a) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Martell, 279 S.C. 289, 307 S.E.2d 601(S.C. 1983);
(b) Israel v. Carolina Bar-B-Que, Inc., 292 S.C. 282, 356 S.E.2d 123 (S.C. 1987);
(c) City of Orangeburg v. Carter, 303 S.C. 291, 400 S.E.2d 141 (S.C. 1991);
(d) Barton v. Superior Motors, Inc., 309 S.C. 491, 424 S.E.2d 524 (S.C. App. 1992);
(e) McCallum v. Bookhart, (unpublished) (1995).
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Walsh's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Walsh is married to Chris Limehouse Walsh and has two children: Kathryn Eliza Walsh, employed at Loving Choice Adoption Agency, Charleston, (age 26); and Clare Phillips Walsh, law student, (age 22).
Mr. Walsh reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) American Bar Association;
(c) Orangeburg County Bar Association (President, 1979-1981);
(d) International Municipal Lawyers Association;
(e) South Carolina Municipal Attorneys Association (Director, 1996-present);
(f) Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (Supreme Court, 1980-1983; Special Appointment, 1996).
Mr. Walsh provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Kiwanis Club;
(b) University of South Carolina Alumni Association (Circuit Vice-President).
•Mr. Walsh stated, "I have practiced law for twenty-six years in a small firm and have held the position of City Attorney for the City of Orangeburg for the past twelve years. Before being appointed City Attorney, my partner, C. Walker Limehouse, held the position and I served as Assistant City Attorney. Practicing in a small firm, I have represented parties in all areas of the law and have gained extensive knowledge in governmental law as City Attorney. As City Attorney, I also prosecute and schedule all jury trial cases in Municipal Court dealing directly with lawyers and pro se parties. I believe that it is important that a judge have some experience in all areas and be able to communicate with both lawyers, parties, and court personnel. I have done so and my record will reflect that I have done so with patience, courtesy, and respect for all, regardless of economic status, race, gender or education."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Williams meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Mr. Williams was born on December 20, 1943. He is 54 years old and a resident of Norway, South Carolina. Mr. Williams provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1979.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Williams reported that he had been sued twice since becoming a Deputy Solicitor. The two cases were related and involved an investigative subpoena he issued. The litigations involved a pending Federal Grand Jury matter. The case was dismissed by the court.
Mr. Williams reported that he had never been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct by any group and has not been the subject of a formal complaint.
Mr. Williams testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Williams testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Williams provided that during the previous five years he has attended the following CLE classes:
(a) South Carolina Solicitor's Association CLE Conference (1993, 1994, 1995, and 1997);
(b) Executive Prosecutor Course sponsored by the National College of District Attorneys (1996);
(c) Evidence Course sponsored by the National College of District Attorneys (1997).
Mr. Williams provided that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a) Coached mock trial team for a local high school for two years in the South Carolina Bar Mock Trial Program;
(b) Taught constitutional law courses for law enforcement agencies;
(c) Taught 1998 re-certification course for state constables.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Williams did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Williams has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission noted that Mr. Williams was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
The Commission incorporated the prior testimony of Mr. Clyde C. Dean, Jr., from January 9, 1998, filed in opposition to Mr. Williams' candidacy. Mr. Dean's complaint consisted of the following allegations: (1) that Mr. Williams, in his capacity as deputy solicitor, made comments to a newspaper reporter that amounted to publishing the criminal record of Mr. Dean's client in the middle of the trial, during which the jury was not sequestered; (2) that Mr. Williams obtained an ex parte order from a judge in order to obtain a transcript; and (3) that Mr. Williams made several comments in the newspaper that would reflect on his qualifications to sit as a circuit court judge.
The Commission carefully considered the information presented and concluded that Mr. Williams abided by the Professional Rules of Conduct and that his actions are not disqualifying for service on the circuit court bench.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Williams reported that he served in the United States Army Reserve from October 1965 to March 1976. The highest rank he attained was E-7. He received an Honorable Discharge.
Mr. Williams reported his Martindale-Hubbell rating as "BV."
Mr. Williams reported that he served as the Mayor of the Town of Norway for eight years and as a member of the town council for fourteen years, from 1966 to 1988. He was responsible for receiving federal and state aid used for the construction of a recreational area in the community. He was also responsible for receiving federal assistance in expanding the water system to a low-income minority area. In addition, he serves as a member of the Orangeburg Soil and Water Conservation Commission. He was appointed to this position in 1996 to fill an unexpired term. His term expires in 1998.
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Williams appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Williams appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Williams was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979.
After graduating from law school, Mr. Williams practiced law as an associate of J.C. Nicholson, Jr., from 1979 to 1980. He had a general law practice, including domestic, real estate, tort litigation, defense work, insurance claims, and other general practice areas. From 1980 to 1981, he practiced law as a partner in the law firm of Marshall, Nicholson and Williams, which was a general practice. From 1981 to 1982, he practiced law as a partner in the law firm of Nicholson and Williams, a general practice. From 1982 to 1984, Mr. Williams was a sole practitioner with a general practice. From 1984 to 1992, he practiced as Senior Partner in the law firm of Williams and Houser with a general practice.
Mr. Williams reported that he served as Mayor of the Town of Norway for eight years. During that time, he presided over the Mayor's Court, which tries criminal matters within its jurisdiction and holds preliminary hearings in more serious matters. It could levy fines up to $200.00.
From 1993 to the present, Mr. Williams has been Deputy Solicitor for the First Judicial Circuit. He is responsible for criminal prosecution in Orangeburg and Calhoun counties. He supervises a staff of seven attorneys and eight non-attorneys.
Mr. Williams reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) Federal: One case
(b) State: Weekly
Mr. Williams reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 0%
(b) Criminal: 100%
(c) Domestic: 0%
Mr. Williams reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 35%
(b) Non-jury: 65%
Mr. Williams provided that he usually acted as sole counsel. He was chief counsel in a few cases, but he was never associate counsel.
•The following is Mr. Williams' account of his most significant litigated matters:
(a) Rothrock v. McCall Thomas Engineering Company, Inc.
This was a slander and tortuous interference with a contract action brought by a disgruntled construction supervisor against the design engineering firm. The case was tried in Berkeley County, South Carolina and verdict rendered for the Defendant after five days of trial. The case was not appealed. This case was significant because it involved questions of federal constitutional law under the New York Times case which was relatively recent at the time. The Defense Verdict was especially meaningful as I was defending an out-of-town corporation. I was assisted by two associate counsel.
(b) Reed v. Medlin, 281 S.E.2d 125, (S.C. 1981) and 328 S.E.2d 115, (S.C. App. 1985)
On September 12, 1979, Mr. Reed was burned to death in a collision while stopped at a road block set up by two highway patrolmen. Representing the widow, we brought suit against a highway patrolman, the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, three individual defendants and a corporate defendant. After two appeals, which resulted in the Department being dismissed as a defendant and after having settled with all defendants other than Patrolman Medlin and having added a Patrolman Morris as a defendant, the case was tried in November of 1985. After a four day trial, we received a verdict for the Plaintiff in the amount of $250,000.00, which was one of largest jury verdicts ever rendered in Orangeburg County to that time. The case involved several interesting questions of law which were decided on appeal. I was chief counsel assisted by two associate counsel.
(c) Joseph Broughton v. Seaboard Airline Railroad.
Mr. Broughton drove his automobile into the side of a switch engine which was crossing a spur track in North Charleston, South Carolina. He received severe permanent brain damage which resulted in total disability and loss of his well-paying job as a long shoreman. The case was extremely difficult because of the contributory negligence issue. The case was tried in Federal court in Charleston with Simmons Tate defending. During the course of the trial, defendant raised its offer to $25,000.00 which was rejected by our client, Mrs. Broughton, against our advice. At the conclusion of the trial of the case, we entered into a "high/low" agreement wherein we agreed to limit any possible recovery to $250,000.00 and the defendant agreed to a minimum recovery in the amount of $50,000.00 plus attorney's fees. This agreement was entered into by the Defendant against the advice of its counsel. The jury was out less than two hours before returning a verdict for the defendant. The case is significant for me because it resulted in a significant monetary recovery for a family which had been placed in destitute circumstances by this unfortunate incident.
(d) Dixie Kemmerlin v. Roy Campbell, M.D.
This medical malpractice case was one of the first cases tried after being admitted to the bar and was the first time a local physician had been sued by a local attorney. Our expert testified that the physician had failed to meet the standard of care in treating a gun shot wound to the chest. Neither the defense counsel or the presiding judge treated the case with much significance as we began the trial. However, by the end of my examination of our expert witness, we had the interest of not only defense counsel and the presiding judge but many members of the Orangeburg County Bar who had come into the courtroom to watch the proceedings. The jury rendered a defense verdict, but the case is significant for a number of reasons. First, I learned that I could prepare and try a very complicated medical malpractice case as well as anyone. Secondly, I learned that an individual shot in a barroom brawl on the wrong side of the tracks does not make an attractive subject for a medical malpractice action. Thirdly, I learned that the fact that there has never been a jury verdict in Orangeburg County against a local physician is not likely to change soon.
(e) Till v. Dairymen, Inc., et al.
In the mid 1980's I brought an action in federal court on behalf of Dr. John E. Till, a local dairy farmer, against Dairymen, Inc. and Coble Dairy, Inc. This action was tried in federal court in Charleston after extensive discovery by both defendants. We were threatened by the defendants and their attorneys, who flew in by private jet from Louisville, Kentucky, that if we pursued this case they would bury us under paperwork so that we would never recover sufficient to go to trial. Settled the case for our initial figure.
•The following is Mr. Williams' account of his three civil appeals that he had personally handled.
(a) Reed v. Medlin.
This case, discussed above, was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court once and to the South Carolina Court of Appeals later. In the first appeal, the Court sustained the Department of Highways and Public Transportation's demurrer on the grounds of sovereign immunity. However, the Court overruled the Department's demurrers as to whether or not the conditions alleged constituted a defect and as to whether or not we were entitled to an action for damages to the widow and children. The second appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Highway Department on the survivor cause of action as well as the denial of a Motion to Amend by adding the Chief Highway Commissioner as party. The second appeal resulted in the trial of case shortly before McCall v. Batson, 329 S.E.2d 741 (S.C. 1985) (repealed the doctrine of sovereign immunity).
(b) Nancy B. Evans v. Dan W. Evans, Memorandum Opinion No. 88-Mo-018, filed February 29, 1988.
In this appeal from the Orangeburg County Family Court, I represented the defendant/respondent. In this custody, visitation, support and property action, the trial court's judgment was viewed as an almost total victory for the defendant. The Court of Appeals in its decision affirmed the lower court's order.
(c) Ballard v. Ballard, 443 S.E.2d 802 (1994).
I represented Mrs. Ballard, the mother of a young man killed in an accidental shooting. She did not want to share the proceeds of a wrongful death suit with her ex-husband who had had no contact with his son for years and had failed to support him. We felt that the language of the statute was sufficient to allow the court to apportion the proceeds other than equally. We lost, but the statute has now been changed to allow just what we tried to accomplish.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Williams' temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Williams is single.
Mr. Williams reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) Orangeburg County Bar (President, 1989);
(b) South Carolina Bar Association.
Mr. Williams provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Former member of Orangeburg County United Fund Board of Directors;
(b) Norway Ruritan Club since 1966 (Served several terms as President and Secretary);
(c) Forty-year member of Norway Baptist Church, present member of Denmark Baptist Church (Has served as a member and Chairman of the Board of Deacons on numerous occasions, has served as Sunday School Teacher for 25 of the last 30 years and in various other leadership positions in both churches);
(d) Founding member of the Board of Directors of Heritage Hall Academy in Norway, South Carolina (Served continuously as President from 1970 until 1993);
(e) South Carolina Independent School Association since 1970 (Has served as Board Representative, served on the Athletic Committee from 1983 to 1986, was elected President of the Association in 1984 and has served continuously since that time).
(f) Commissioner, Orangeburg Conservation District since 1989 (served as chairman for two years).
•Mr. Williams stated, "I was 33 years old and had been out of college for eleven years when I enrolled in law school. During these years I gained invaluable business, political and personal experience. Although it was difficult to become a student again, especially since I commuted 90 miles each day and continued to farm full time in order to support myself and service my farm debt, my maturity was of great value in understanding the law and its applications to every day life and business experience.
From my graduation in 1979 until January 1, 1993, I practiced almost exclusively in the civil arena. I practiced in several partnership situations, but was always the chief litigator. The Reed case, mentioned in my resume, was drafted before I was admitted to the bar, and filed shortly thereafter. I personally handled all of the procedural matters and technical aspects of the litigations and trial.
On January 1, 1993, I became Deputy Solicitor for the First Judicial Circuit and was named Chief Deputy Solicitor in 1995. I have been responsible for all criminal prosecution in Orangeburg and Calhoun counties for the past five years. Even though I had very little experience on the criminal side, I have been successful in setting up and administering a system which has resulted in reducing the case backlog by more than 50%, even though the number of cases filed has increased.
My experience working very closely with the various administrative judges and presiding judges has given me a broad and valuable perspective into the judiciary.
From my college days, I have been elected to a top leadership position in every organization of which I have been a member. These facts, coupled with my varied and extensive professional, business, and personal background, make me uniquely qualified to serve the State of South Carolina as a Circuit Court Judge."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. McCravy meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Mr. McCravy was born on September 6, 1958. He is 39 years old and a resident of Hodges, South Carolina. Mr. McCravy provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. McCravy.
Mr. McCravy demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. McCravy reported that he had been sued professionally. A consultant who was hired by a client and then subsequently terminated for failing to do any work filed a lawsuit against Mr. McCravy in small claims court in Chicago, Illinois. He alleged Mr. McCravy's client owed him a fee for services, even though he did not earn the fee. Mr. McCravy settled out of court for $750 as a nuisance value so he would not have to go to Illinois to defend himself.
Mr. McCravy 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. McCravy testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. McCravy to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. McCravy provided that during the previous five years he has attended numerous CLEs and seminars.
Mr. McCravy reported that he had taught the following law-related courses:
(a) Constitutional Law Courses and Criminal Law Courses at Piedmont Technical College;
(b) Professional Secretaries Course at Lander University;
(c) Constable legal review course at Piedmont Technical College.
Mr. McCravy reported that he had published the following articles:
(a) "Legal Pad" -Approximately 450 Weekly Newspaper articles in the Index-Journal, 1988-date;
(b) "S.C. Jurisprudence" Legal Encyclopedia - Appeals section on procedure, 1990;
(c) "Handling Pulmonary W. C. Claims" - Article in "Trial Bulletin," Fall, 1997.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. McCravy did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. McCravy did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. McCravy has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. McCravy was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. McCravy reported his Martindale-Hubbell rating as "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. McCravy appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. McCravy appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. McCravy was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
Mr. McCravy provided that he had served as a law clerk in the U.S. Attorney's Office and in the S.C. Attorney General's Office.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. McCravy served as a staff attorney to the Supreme Court of S.C. from 1985 to 1987. From 1987 to 1995, he was in private practice with Callison, Dorn, Thomason, Garrett & McCravy, P.A. in Greenwood, South Carolina. The firm was a general practice with a concentration on civil litigation. From 1995 to 1997, he worked in private practice at the McCravy Law Firm, P.A., a general practice firm concentrating in circuit court. From 1996 to present, he has also been a City Attorney in Greenwood.
Mr. McCravy reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) Federal: Approximately 30 appearances
(b) State: Approximately 200 appearances
(c) Other: Planning Boards, Magistrate's Court, County Council
Mr. McCravy reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 80%
(b) Criminal: 5%
(c) Domestic: 1%
Mr. McCravy reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 50%
(b) Non-jury: 50%
Mr. McCravy provided that he usually acted as sole counsel.
•The following is Mr. McCravy's account of his most significant litigated matters:
(a) Shirley v. Builders Transport. This was a multi-party wreck case which was tried for three days. Obtained a favorable jury verdict in Kershaw County.
(b) Cohen v. Grede Foundry, Inc. This was a complicated occupational disease workers compensation case. Obtained a favorable ruling after a prolonged hearing and was affirmed by the Full Commission. This was the first known case in the United States recognizing hypersensitivity pneumonitis as an occupational disease.
(c) Aiken v. Roberts Foundry, Inc. This was a class action for environmental nuisance involving over 250 Plaintiffs. The case eventually settled after years of discovery as trial approached.
(d) Laughlin v. K-Mart. Obtained a favorable jury verdict after several days of trial.
(e) Lewis v. U. S. Navy. Represented a Navy Veteran who was exposed to Mustard Gas in secret experiments in WWII. Used a novel theory in an attempt to circumvent the Feres Doctrine. Client was awarded 100% disability by the VA while the trial was pending.
•Mr. McCravy listed five civil appeals that he has personally handled as follows:
(a) State v. Eustace, 299 S.C. 145, 382 S.E.2d 918 (1989);
(b) Stewart v. State Crop Pest Commission, 307 S.C. 133, 414 S.E.2d 121 (1992);
(c) Garrett v. SCDC, 93-CP-35-01 (1993) (appeal to Circuit Court from Full Commission);
(d) Arnold v. Clinton Mills, Inc., W.C.C. No: 8566288 (appeal to Full Commission);
(e) Webb v. First Federal S & L of Anderson, 299 S.C. 1, 282 S.E.2d 4 (1989).
Mr. McCravy reported that he served on the SC Board of Grievances and Discipline from 1991 to 1996. He served on various panels as a member and chairman in proceedings concerning alleged misconduct by attorneys.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. McCravy's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. McCravy is married to Dana Shaw McCravy and has two children: John R. McCravy, IV (age 12); and Kelley McCravy (age 9).
Mr. McCravy reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) SC Bar Association;
(b) Greenwood County Bar Association (Secretary/Treasurer, 1994-1996);
(c) S.C. Trial Lawyers Association;
(d) Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Mr. McCravy provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) South Main Street Baptist Church, Greenwood (Vice-Chairman, Deacon Board);
(b) Greater Greenwood United Ministries (President);
(c) Masonic Lodge (32nd Degree Mason).
Commission's Finding: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Rucker meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Judge Rucker was born on October 22, 1944. He is 53 years old and a resident of Newberry County. Judge Rucker provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Rucker.
Judge Rucker demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Rucker testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Rucker testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
Judge Rucker's performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Rucker provided that during the previous five years he had attended the following JCLE courses and judicial conferences:
6-14-93 Family Court Judicial Conference
8-26-93 Judicial Conference
11-4-93 Best Interest of Children
6-20-94 Orientation School for Family Court Judges
6-4-94 Lawyers Caring About Kids
8-25-94 Judicial Conference
8-19-94 Juvenile Crime
6-21-95 Family Court Judges' Conference
8-24-95 Judicial Conference
11-17-95 Family Law Bench/Bar Update
6-26-96 Family Court Judges Conference
8-8-96 Trial Lawyers CLE
8-22-96 Judicial Conference
1-3-97 Seminar for Chief Administrative Judges
3-6-97 Governor's Conference on Youth Crime
8-21-97 Judicial Conference
Judge Rucker reported that in 1996, he was a speaker and panel member at the Child Support Decision-Making 2000, National Child Support Enforcement Association Conference in Washington D.C.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Rucker did not reveal any evidence of grievances or criminal allegations made against him.
Two complaints were filed against Judge Rucker. The first complaint was filed by Samuel Stevenson who alleged that he received unfavorable rulings in his divorce and child custody case due to Judge Rucker's bias in favor of Mr. Stevenson's ex-wife. Mr. Stevenson claimed that Judge Rucker knew his ex-wife's family. The Commission noted that Mr. Stevenson had no first-hand knowledge of this claim. Judge Rucker testified that he did not know this family. The Commission did not find any bias or other wrongdoing by Judge Rucker.
The second complaint was filed by William Stewart who alleged that Judge Rucker did not properly rule on a motion to terminate alimony arising from Mr. Stewart's divorce case. The Commission found that the complaint was a matter for the appellate court and did not find any wrongdoing by Judge Rucker.
The Commission's investigation of Judge Rucker did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Rucker has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Rucker was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Rucker reported that as a member of the judiciary, his last available rating in Martindale-Hubbell was "BV."
Judge Rucker served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1976 until 1980.
Judge Rucker served as Commissioner with the South Carolina Tax Commission from 1984 until 1988.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Rucker appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Rucker appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Rucker was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Rucker has worked as an associate for Attorney Tench P. Owens from June 1969 until October 1969; as a sole practitioner from 1969 until 1988; and has been a Family Court Judge since 1988.
Judge Rucker reported that he was elected as the Recorder for the City of Newberry from September 1971 to June 1976. His jurisdiction was limited to minor criminal and traffic offenses. He has been a Family Court judge since July 1, 1988, and his jurisdiction has been limited to family and juvenile matters.
•The following is Judge Rucker's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
(a) McElveen v. McElveen, 94-DR-40-5024
Among the many issues presented to the court was the issue as to whether a buy sell agreement between husband and partners not entered into in contemplation of marital litigation was controlling as to value of the husbands interest in the partnership. This is an issue which had not been ruled upon in South Carolina. I ruled that it was controlling. This matter is presently under appeal.
(b) Chanko v. Chanko, Court of Appeals, Opinion 2706 Filed July 28, 1997
Included in this case was the issue of whether TWOP Accounts (Time off with pay accounts) used by some businesses rather than sick leave or vacation days are income to be added to the employee's gross income for child support purposes. I determined that this was not be included in the gross income. This was upheld by the Court of Appeals.
(c) Snook v. Snook, 97-DR-36-11
Issue as to whether South Carolina Family Court or the Courts of another state had jurisdiction to determine custody of a minor child when child had along with parents moved to another state and remained for five months until mother and child moved back to South Carolina. Father contended that mother did not make evident her intention to remain in South Carolina until she filed custody action several months later. The statute in issue was the portion of the UCCJA (S.C. Code 20-7-786(5))(1996) which states "Periods of temporary absence of any such persons are counted as part of the six month period." Case turned on factual issues. I ruled that South Carolina had jurisdiction under provisions of the UCCJA.
(d) Richardson v. Richardson, 95-DR-36-0588
This case involved the equitable distribution of a employer funded retirement plan for partners in the firm. The husband had been a partner for approximately four years at the time of filing of the marital litigation. The partnership agreement required that an individual be a partner for seven years before the retirement vested. I ruled that under the terms of the partnership agreement the non-contributory retirement benefits had not become marital property and denied the wife any interest in the retirement. Another issue in this case was the ownership of a Gamecock Club membership. This membership was obtained by the husband several years prior to the marriage and after the parties separation the husband maintained the contribution level, I ruled that the Gamecock Club membership was the property of the husband.
(e) Seymore v. Seymore, 94-DR-30-833
This action was one for divorce on fault grounds. The parties had been married in excess of 30 years. The parties had accumulated substantial assets, many through inheritance. Many of the inherited assets had been co-mingled. Court was faced with the task of determining what constituted marital assets. This task was further complicated by transfers of investment accounts by one of the parties after the commencement of the action.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Rucker's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Rucker is married to Harriett S. Lee. They have two children: John B. Rucker, a graduate student at the University of South Carolina, (age 23); Wylie M. Rucker, a student at Newberry College (age 22).
Judge Rucker reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar
(b) American Bar Association
(c) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association, (President 1996-97), and (Secretary-Treasurer 1995-96)
Judge Rucker provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Central United Methodist Church;
(b) Mason, Shriner;
(c) Rotary Club of Newberry;
(d) Country Club of Newberry.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Saunders meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Judge Saunders was born on September 20, 1942. He is 55 years old and a resident of Laurens, South Carolina. Judge Saunders provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1968.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Saunders.
Judge Saunders demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Saunders 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 Saunders testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Saunders to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Saunders reported that he has complied with the CLE requirements by attending approved seminars and reporting annually on his attendance. As a practicing attorney, the seminars have been on various subjects relating to his interests and intellectual needs. Since election to the judiciary in 1994, he has complied with the JCLE requirements by attending approved seminars and reporting on his attendance.
Judge Saunders reported that he has taught business law for adult education classes held at night school in Laurens from approximately 1973 until 1975.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Saunders did not reveal any evidence of grievances or criminal allegations made against him.
One complaint was filed against Judge Saunders. The complaint was filed by Samuel Stevenson who alleged he received unfavorable rulings in matters pertaining to his divorce and child custody case due to Judge Saunders' bias in favor of Mr. Stevenson's ex-wife. Mr. Stevenson claimed that Judge Saunders knew his ex-wife's family. The Commission noted that Mr. Stevenson had no first-hand knowledge of this claim. Judge Saunders testified that he did not know this family. The Commission did not find any bias or other wrongdoing by Judge Saunders.
The Commission's investigation of Judge Saunders did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Saunders has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Saunders 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 Saunders reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Saunders appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Saunders appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Saunders was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1968.
Judge Saunders reported that he was a Police Officer for the City of Laurens from 1962-1965 and was appointed by Chief of Police, William J. "Bill" Power. He was the City Attorney for the City of Laurens from 1972 to 1992. He was Counsel to the Commission of Public Works in Laurens from 1993 until September 30, 1994, having been elected by the public body making the appointment.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Saunders reported he began the general practice of law in Laurens in 1968, always as a sole practitioner. He was the city attorney for the City of Laurens from 1972 to 1992. He represented the Commission of Public Works as counsel from 1993 to 1994; then he was elected to the judiciary. During the period from 1972 through 1988, he represented the South Carolina Highway Department, by association with the Office of the Attorney General, Duke Power Company, insurance companies, and smaller corporations. After 1988, he represented only one insurance company and smaller, closely-held local corporations. His practice of law was general and included civil, criminal, domestic, and administrative law practice in the state and federal courts.
Judge Saunders reported that he was elected on May 25, 1994, to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable Williams J. Craine, Jr., as Family Court Judge, Seat 1, Eighth Judicial Circuit, commencing October 1, 1994. He was reelected to this position on May 25, 1995.
Judge Saunders reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) Federal: Occasionally
(b) State: Frequently
(c) Other: Administrative (Social Security Administration, Workers' Compensation Commission): Frequently
Judge Saunders reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 40%
(b) Criminal: 25%
(c) Domestic: 35%
Judge Saunders reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 20%
(b) Non-jury: 80%
Judge Saunders provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
•The following is Judge Saunders' account of his most significant litigated matters:
(a) James Calvin Davenport v. Reigel Textile Corporation (WCC File No: unknown) was a worker's compensation claim for total permanent disability to a textile worker because of byssinosis or "cotton dust disease". The case was settled in December 1981 for $47,500.00 and I believe it contributed substantially to improved working conditions in textile mills.
(b) Paul Kochon v. Spartan Grain and Feed, Inc. was a civil action for damages to a cattle herd allegedly caused by molded feed, or cattle feed which had allegedly became adulterated by aflatoxins. In December 1984, the case was tried before a court and jury in Laurens County and resulted in a verdict for the defendant. Nevertheless, I feel that the case had a significant effect on improving the quality of cattle feed and controls for molds and other potential carcinogens.
(c) The Estate of Noree Garlington v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad was a third-party suit against the railroad by an employee who was compensated by the State Fund for an on-the-job injury. The plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by a co-worker. The plaintiff alleged that the driver of the automobile and the railroad were negligent. The case is significant because the jury found the driver contributory negligent but did not impute contributory negligence to the passenger and returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
(d) Kerr v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 731 F.2d 229 (1984) is significant because it reaffirmed the South Carolina law that a policy of insurance is severable and fraud for the claim of personal property loss will not forfeit the entire policy if there was no fraud in the claim for the loss of the structure. The case was tried before a court and jury in United States District Court by the applicant, was lead counsel in the appeal.
(e) Walton v. Stewart, 289 S.E.2d 403, 277 S.C. 436 (1982) is significant because this case established that the abolition of parental immunity by the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1980 was prospective only.
•Judge Saunders listed five civil appeals which he has personally handled as follows:
(a) Lurey v. City of Laurens, 217 S.E.2d 226, 265 S.C. 975 (1976). (Exhibit "D", pages 001 - 027);
(b) Garlington v. South Carolina Department of Mental Retardation, et al., 81-CP-30-182, wherein a consent order of dismissal was entered by acting Justice William Rhodes. (Exhibit "D", pages 028 - 059);
(c) Walton v. Stewart, 289 S.E.2d 403, 277 S.C. 436 (1982).
(Exhibit "D", pages 060 - 071);
(d) Kerr v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 731 F.2d 229 (1984). (Exhibit "D", pages 072 - 096);
(e) Saluda Motor Lines, Inc. v. Crouch, S.C. App., 386 S.E.2d 290, 300 S.C. 43 (1989). (Exhibit "D", pages 097 - 119).
Judge Saunders reported that he was elected on May 25, 1994, to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable Williams J. Craine, Jr., as Family Court Judge, Seat 1, Eighth Judicial Circuit, commencing October 1, 1994. He was reelected to this position on May 25, 1995.
•Judge Saunders listed his five most significant orders or opinions as the following:
(a) Stevenson v. Stevenson, 93-DR-24-615, Order dated 27 May 1995, and Decision of Court of Appeals filed 22 July 1996, cited as Unpublished Opinion Number 96-UP-216;
(b) Ridley v. Ridley, 91-DR-30-327, Order dated 02 August 1995, and Decision of Court of Appeals filed 02 December 1996, cited as Unpublished Opinion Number 96-UP-439;
(c) Epperly v. Epperly, 94-DR-30-526, Orders dated 26 October 1995 and 02 May 1996, and Decision of Court of Appeals, filed 17 February 1998, cited as Unpublished Opinion Number 98-UP-075;
(d) In the Interest of Christopher P., 96-JU-01-01, and 96-JU-01-22, Order dated 14 May 1996, and Decision of Court of Appeals, 13 October 1997, cited as Published Opinion Number 2734;
(e) Davis v. Davis, 94-DR-36-105.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Saunders temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Saunders is married to Laura Holland Uzzell. He has three children: Laura McCall Saunders (page in the SC House of Representatives, age 18); Lillie Dupre' Saunders (life guard at the Laurens YMCA, age 16); Leigh Holland Saunders (clerk at Master Dry Cleaners in Laurens, age 16).
Judge Saunders reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association;
(b) South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges.
Judge Saunders provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) The First Methodist Church, Laurens, SC;
(b) Laurens Cotillion Club;
(c) Laurens Carolean Club (resigned 1996);
(d) Laurens Supper Club (resigned 1996);
(e) Hejaz Shrine Temple, (Greenville became inactive, 1997);
(f) Laurens Palmetto Lodge #19;), AFM (became inactive 1997);
(g) Laurens County Shrine Club (became inactive 1997);
(h) The Knights of Shag, which is also known as The Sherlock Holmes Society, Greenville, SC.
•Judge Saunders stated, "My experience as police officer has been of immense value to me in my practice of law and as a judge."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. John meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Mr. John was born on December 1, 1953. He is 44 years old and a resident of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. John provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. John.
Mr. John demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. John 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. John testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. John to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. John reported the following list describing his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years not including carry-over hours.
(a) 1998 - to date - 12.5 legal ed. hours and .5 ethics hours;
(b) 1997 - 25.5 legal ed. hours and 5.75 ethics hours;
(c) 1996 - 42.92 legal ed. hours and 9.5 ethics hours;
(d) 1995 - 29.5 legal ed. hours and 7.75 ethics hours;
(e) 1994 - 18.25 legal ed. hours and 2.0 ethics hours;
(f) 1993 - 34.75 legal ed. hours and 1.5 ethics hours;
(g) 1992 - 22.75 legal ed. hours and 4.5 ethics hours.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. John did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. John did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. John has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. John was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. John reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. John appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. John appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. John was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. John served as a law clerk to the Honorable Sidney T. Floyd, Resident Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, from 1978 to 1980.
He has worked in private trial practice since 1981. He opened a solo practice in North Myrtle Beach in 1986, having an active trial practice in all of the state courts. In civil court, he has tried cases ranging from contracts and automobile accidents to multi-million dollar construction cases. In criminal court, he has tried cases ranging from traffic offenses to court-appointed defense in death penalty cases. In family court, he has tried cases from uncontested divorces to all manners of contested family disputes.
Mr. John served as a court-appointed special referee in the circuit court, appointed by Judges Sidney T. Floyd and David H. Maring, Sr., in over 50 cases. Mr. John was also named a Certified Circuit Court Arbitrator by the South Carolina Supreme Court Board of Arbitration. He was named a court-appointed mediator in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, appointed by Judges Sidney T. Floyd and David H. Maring, Sr., in over 50 cases. He was also named a court-appointed guardian ad litem in disputed child custody cases in the Family Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in over 100 cases.
Mr. John has served on the City of North Myrtle Beach Zoning Board since 1993.
Mr. John has also been a Pro Bono Lawyer for Horry County Disabilities and Special Needs agency since 1993.
Mr. John reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) Federal: Infrequent
(b) State: Over the last five years in Circuit Court and Family Court, he has had a variety of matters, whether by motion, uncontested action, non-jury trial, or jury trial, and virtually every week that there has been Court in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.
Mr. John reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 40%
(b) Criminal: 20%
(c) Domestic: 20%
Mr. John reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 40%
(b) Non-jury: 60%
Mr. John provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
•The following is Mr. John's account of his most significant litigated matters:
(a) Mariners Pointe Homeowners Association v. U.D.C.-Universal Development, d/b/a U.D.C. Homes Limited Partnership v. over thirty (30) Third Party Defendants, and Paul Martin and Be Bushong, Individually and as Class Representatives v. U.D.C.-Universal Development, d/b/a U.D.C. Homes Limited Partnership - 1990-1996. As the title indicates, this was an extremely complex construction case. The main action by the Association dealt with the damages to the common elements at the Mariners Pointe Condominium and Marina project. The construction issues involved roofing damage, settlement of the marsh in areas near the buildings, pool defects, marina design defects, porch and deck defects, fire wall defects, spoilage basin design defects, ventilation defects, irrigation system defects, parking lot design defects, sighting defects, and a host of other general construction problems, many of which violated the standard building code. The class action dealt with interior unit damages suffered by the individual owners.
I developed the case from its initial interviews through development of all of the necessary experts, numerous depositions and production of documents, and upon the eve of trial, through the use of mediation, this case was eventually settled to the satisfaction of the Plaintiffs in the multi-million dollar range.
(b) State v. Titus Huggins, 1996. This was a death penalty case. I was court appointed with a public defender for Horry County to provide the defense. There was an initial trial of the first phase, during which Mr. Huggins was convicted armed robbery and murder with a pistol. The defense presented motions to the trial judge regarding juror improprieties, which led the court to declare a mistrial. There was a retrial in which I again participated as one of the two defense counsels for Mr. Huggins, in which Mr. Huggins was again convicted of armed robbery and murder of a shop keeper and subsequently received the death penalty. This matter is currently on appeal.
(c) North Carolina Federal Savings and Loan Association v. DAV Corporation, et. al, 1986-1993. I was retained to file a mortgage foreclosure action on certain ocean view property, upon which there had been a failed condominium project. Before trial, due to motions for a jury trial made by one of the defendants on certain of his counter-claims, this matter was the subject of an appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and thereafter, Certiorari was granted and an opinion issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court, which helped to define legal and equitable claims. This matter was also placed in the purview of the Bankruptcy Court for a period of time due to actions of a defendant, which caused certain filings to remove the matter from the Bankruptcy Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff went into receivership and was taken over by an agency of the Federal Government, the Resolution Trust Corporation, which caused the matter to be transferred to Federal Court. Eventually we were able to successfully convince the Federal Court to issue a Summary Judgment Order granting foreclosure. Besides the issues decided on appeal, as reported in 294 S.C. 27, 362 S.E.2d 308, and 298 S.C. 514, 381 S.E.2d 903, this case also epitomized the difficulties that can be encountered and necessarily overcome in what may appear to be initially a relatively straight forward matter.
(d) State v. Limme Arther, 1985-1998. This was a death penalty case. I was court appointed with another counsel to provide the defense for Mr. Arther, who was ultimately convicted of armed robbery and murder with an ax. At Mr. Arther's first trial, he was convicted and given the death sentence; however, due to objections made by myself and other trial counsel, because of improper arguments and statements by the solicitor, the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence and returned it for new sentencing hearing. At the second trial of the death penalty phase, due to the intervention of Attorney David Bruck, who was also appointed as defense counsel for Mr. Arther, this matter was tried only by a circuit judge, without a jury, and the death sentence was then imposed. The Supreme Court reviewed this and returned the matter for the imposition of a life sentence. This case was reported in 290 S.C. 291, 350 S.E.2d 187 (1986), and 296 S.C. 495, 374 S.E.2d 291 (1998).
(e) McCormac v. The Town of Pawleys Island, et al. While I was not trial counsel for either party in this matter, I was the court appointed Special Referee. This case involved an appeal from the decision of the Town of Pawleys Island Zoning Board of Appeals, in which that Board granted a variance for the construction of a residence. As the non-jury trial judge in this matter, I reversed the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town and the other parties appealed this matter to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and in an unpublished opinion number 95-UP-077, filed March 23, 1995, my decision was upheld and my order was adopted as the decision on appeal.
•Mr. John listed five civil appeals which he has personally handled as follows:
(a) State v. Sapps, 295 S.C. 484, 369 S.E.2d 145 (1988). I filed this appeal on behalf of a defendant who was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnaping. The main issue on appeal was whether or not it was proper for the solicitor, in cross examination, to ask the defendant whether other witnesses were lying, thereby forcing the defendant to attack the veracity and truthfulness of other witnesses, thereby improperly invading an area to be determined by the jury. The South Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction and returned the matter for new trial. Later this party pled guilty to lessor charges, more reflective of his limited involvement in the crime.
(b) Kincaid v. The Landing Development Corporation, et al., 289 S.C. 89, 344 S.E.2d 869 (Ct. App. 1986). This was a significant construction case that I developed for trial, along with John R. Clarke, Esquire, and upon a successful verdict being rendered to our client, an appeal was taken by the defendants. The verdict was upheld by the Court of Appeals, and certain important areas in construction litigation were clarified by this decision, including qualification of expert witnesses, sufficiency of damage information, and liability of interrelated corporations. I wrote the appeal brief in this matter and participated in the oral arguments with John R. Clarke, Esquire.
(c) Roundtree Villas Association, Inc. v. 4701 Kings Corp., et. al., 282 S.C. 415, 321 S.E.2d 46 (1984). This was a construction case which I developed for trial with John R. Clarke, Esquire, and upon a successful jury verdict, an appeal was taken by the defendants. The Supreme Court returned the matter for a new trial, in which the plaintiff was again successful. This matter is significant because it did extend liability when a lending agency undertakes to make repairs on a building it previously only participated in by financing. There is then a common law duty which arises to use due care in the repairs, thereby making the lender liable for any damages caused by negligent repairs. I wrote the appeal brief in this matter and participated in the oral arguments with John R. Clarke, Esquire.
(d) Piedmont Aviation, Inc. v. Quinn, 294 S.C. 502, 366 S.E.2d 31, (Ct. App) 1988. I was retained to write the appeal brief for the plaintiff in this matter by the trial counsel, and they used these arguments I developed at oral arguments. The jury verdict was upheld by the Court of Appeals which helped define the two issue rule.
(e) Note: for the above cases, no trial briefs are available. Since all of these matters have been concluded, the trial briefs were destroyed as extraneous and are no longer available. Therefore, for the last Appeal I am listing the case of:
Tilghman v. Tilghman, which is currently on appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Docket Number 95-DR-26-2983. Though this is a Family Court appeal, I believe it is relevant in that the main area on appeal does deal with the corroboration of evidence, which may have applicability in civil matters. Further, I am able to provide copies of my Initial Brief of Appellant, as well as my Reply Brief of Appellant.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. John's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. John is married to Susan Watts John.
Mr. John reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association (1978-present);
(b) Horry County Bar Association (1978-present).
Mr. John provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Rotary International and local North Myrtle Beach Club (1987-present, member of the local club's Board of Directors and held numerous committee chairmanships; Paul Harris Sustaining Member and has received the perfect attendance award ever since joining in 1987);
(b) Optimist International and local North Myrtle Beach Club (1987-1996, member of the Board of Directors and has held various officer positions);
(c) Citadel Alumni Association and Citadel Brigadier Club (1975-present);
(d) Horry County Citadel Club (1980-present);
(e) U.S.C. Alumni Association and U.S.C. Gamecock Club (1978-present).
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Thomas meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Judge Thomas was born on October 20, 1957. She is 40 years old and a resident of Pawleys Island, South Carolina. Judge Thomas provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by 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 communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
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.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Thomas to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Thomas provided that, as an attorney, she has complied with the minimum CLE requirements. As a judge, she has attended numerous CLEs through the SC Bar programs and judicial conferences, exceeding the minimum requirements.
Judge Thomas provided that she lectured for the following programs:
(a) August 6, 1993 - "Restructured State Government & The State of Administrative Law" - Speaker;
(b) April 26, 1996 - "So You Want to be a Judge" - Woman in Law, Columbia, SC (speaking from legislative perspective about judicial elections).
(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.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Thomas reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was unknown.
Judge Thomas reported that she was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives Seat 108 representing Georgetown/Horry counties in November 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.
From January 1987 to September 1987, Judge Thomas worked at the Law Offices of Kenneth W. Thornton in Georgetown as an associate in Family and Circuit Court matters. From September 1987 to August 1988, she worked with Rubillo & Thomas, in Georgetown as a Partner in Family and Circuit Court matters. From August 1988 to January 1993, she was a sole practitioner in Pawleys Island, working in Family and Circuit Court matters. From January 1993 to January 1994, she was with Thomas & Gundling in Pawleys Island as a Partner in Family and Circuit Court matters. From January 1994 to May 1994, Judge Thomas was with Lawrimore, Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher, PA, in Pawleys Island as a Partner in Family and Circuit Court matters. From May 1994 to January 1995, she was with Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher in Pawleys Island as a Partner in Family and Circuit Court matters. From January 1995 to July 1996, she was a sole practitioner in Pawleys Island, working in Family and Circuit Court matters.
Judge Thomas was elected to the Circuit Court At-Large Seat 1 in May 1996. She was re-elected to that position in May 1997.
•Judge Thomas listed her five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) State of S.C. v. Jeffrey Becka, 95-GS-26-1615;
(b) State of S.C. v. William J. Greene, 94-GS-22-139;
(c) Quality Towing Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 96-CP-26-1414;
(d) Margaret Kizer v. Atco International, 94-CP-38-570;
(e) Gerald R. Baker v. S.C. Dept. of Revenue & Taxation, 96-CP-26-3376.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Thomas' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Thomas is married to Don Thomas and has three children: James Austin Thomas (age 11); Kristen Lee Thomas (age 9); Kelly Ann Thomas (age 9).
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's 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).
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Wilson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Mr. Wilson was born on July 24, 1951. He is 46 years old and a resident of Conway, South Carolina. Mr. Wilson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
Mr. Wilson reported that he had been sued personally.
•Mr. Wilson stated the following instances in which he has been sued professionally:
(a) Julann Prince v. Ralph Wilson (94-26-791) - This law suit arose out of Mr. Wilson's 1994 re-election. An assistant working in his office was terminated. She later filed for the Office of Solicitor and made representations that she was terminated for political reasons. Mr. Wilson released a copy of her termination letter explaining why she had been fired. She then filed suit for slander and defamation. The suit was dismissed for lack of merit.
(b) Leon Roberts v. Ralph J. Wilson & SLED Agents, et al. (4:94-2843-22). This suit involved an investigation into criminal activity of officers in the Myrtle Beach Police Department. Leon Roberts and several other officers were indicted by the Horry County Grand Jury after an extensive SLED investigation. The indictments were later dismissed by an appointed conflict prosecutor. Roberts then filed a federal lawsuit claiming the SLED investigation was flawed, that Mr. Wilson should have known of the mishandling, and that he was prejudiced. The case was dismissed.
(c) Hugh Turbeville v. Ralph J. Wilson and Myrtle Beach Police Department, et al. (91-CP-26-4106 and 4:91-2656-19 AH). This is a pro se action by a prisoner for an alleged violation of civil rights filed in state and federal court. The case was dismissed.
Mr. Wilson reported that he had to pay a penalty to the State Ethics Commission for not timely filing updated quarterly campaign reports from his 1994 re-election. The forms were filed and the penalty was paid.
Mr. Wilson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Wilson 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. Wilson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Wilson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Wilson provided that during the previous five years he has averaged 30 to 45 hours per year in CLEs. He noted that these hours far exceed the minimum requirements set by the Bar. The vast majority of these CLEs have been out of state, such as the annual conference for prosecutors involved in capital litigation (Association of Government Lawyers in Capital Litigation), the Annual South Carolina Solicitor's Conference, and the annual meetings of the National Bar Association. In addition, he has attended seminars sponsored by the South Carolina Bar involving the Rules of Evidence and Criminal Law Updates.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Wilson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Wilson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission noted that Mr. Wilson 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.
Nine witnesses testified in opposition to Mr. Wilson's candidacy and two witnesses testified in support of Mr. Wilson's candidacy.
Dr. Gary Smith testified about incidents that occurred in 1995 when Dr. Smith was the Superintendent of the Horry County Schools. A grand jury indicted Dr. Smith for misconduct in office regarding computer purchases. Dr. Smith alleged that he gave evidence to Mr. Wilson prior to the grand jury hearing that the computers were properly purchased. Further, he alleged that the State Auditor's office admitted they were mistaken when they first reported the problem. Dr. Smith alleged that Mr. Wilson refused to dismiss the case and sought other indictments against Dr. Smith for political reasons.
Mr. Wilson responded that he had a responsibility to prosecute the case once the indictments were handed down by the grand jury. He further testified that the matter was brought to his attention by SLED, and that Dr. Smith subsequently signed an affidavit admitting improprieties in return for dismissal of the charges.
Richard Heath, the former School Board Chairman of Horry County, testified to the same events surrounding the above indictment. Mr. Heath, who was also charged, alleged that he sought a speedy trial four months after the grand jury indictment. The motion was denied but the Solicitor's Office was instructed to try the case before October 31st. Mr. Heath further alleged that Mr. Wilson stated he would recuse himself on the case. On October 29th, the charges were dismissed and Mr. Wilson then sought a new indictment. Prior to the trial, the charges were dismissed again. Mr. Heath alleged that the events were political in nature.
Mr. Wilson responded that the case was dropped without his knowledge or approval, and that was the reason a new indictment was sought. Further, Mr. Wilson responded that he did not promise to recuse himself.
Ms. Patti Hilton, a current member of the Horry County School Board, testified that the entire Board voted on the computer contracts, and that it was her opinion that Mr. Wilson selectively chose to indict only Dr. Smith and Mr. Heath for political reasons; Mr. Wilson then deliberately delayed their trials.
Mr. Wilson responded that his office received several complaints which he turned over to SLED to investigate. It was his intention to bring all of the charges at once, so he delayed the trials until the investigations were complete.
Mr. J. Chappell Dew, a current member of the Horry County Board of Education, testified that Mr. Wilson issued a subpoena to each Board member to attend a meeting in Mr. Wilson's office.
Mr. Wilson responded that he knew the subpoenas had no legal effect, but he wanted to ensure that the Board members would meet with him.
Ms. Desiree Scott, the mother of a man who died when he jumped off a balcony while in police custody, alleged that she repeatedly, unsuccessfully requested copies of the autopsy report. She further alleged that Mr. Wilson lied to the media when he stated that her son jumped as a result of drugs when the toxicology report indicated otherwise. Ms. Scott testified that several months passed and that Mr. Wilson gave her a copy of the autopsy report after he released it to the media.
Mr. Wilson responded that a witness in the room with Ms. Scott's son relayed information that matched the police's account of facts surrounding the jump from the balcony. Further, Mr. Wilson responded that he disclosed to Ms. Scott that he would release the autopsy report as soon as the investigation was completed. Mr. Wilson testified that he met with Ms. Scott on at least two occasions and explained to her what he was doing and why. He testified that a third meeting was not kept by Ms. Scott.
Ms. Rachael A. Dain, a victim's advocate unconnected to any particular organization, alleged that she had statements from eight women who had been molested by a magistrate and an attorney. She further alleged that for political reasons, Mr. Wilson only pursued charges against the magistrate and not the attorney.
Mr. Wilson responded that he carefully looked into the cases referenced above and that he concluded that he did not have enough evidence to prosecute the attorney.
Ms. Shirley Register alleged that Mr. Wilson used false information to obtain an arrest warrant against one of her family members. She further alleged that Mr. Wilson destroyed DNA evidence, illegally sealed case files, and did not comply with Freedom of Information Act requests.
Mr. Wilson responded that the police department, not the Solicitor's office, sought the arrest warrant. He further responded that he had a policy of not releasing files until the appellate process was complete. He also responded that he turned the DNA test results over to the defense and offered them samples. Mr. Wilson testified that the defense did not want the samples, so he told SLED to do whatever they normally do with the samples. In this case, the samples are now missing and presumed destroyed.
Ms. Julaan Prince alleged that Mr. Wilson should have recused himself from hearing particular cases involving public offices, such as the Myrtle Beach Police Department and the South Carolina Highway Patrol, that were being prosecuted by the 15th Circuit Solicitor's Office. She also alleged that Mr. Wilson made personnel changes regarding the assistant solicitors and their secretaries; that she was terminated from the Solicitor's office because of Mr. Wilson's concerns regarding her intentions to run for solicitor; and that after her termination, Mr. Wilson threatened to report her to SLED for interfering with an investigation in which she represented the mother of a murder victim.
Mr. Wilson responded that he had problems with Ms. Prince after he demoted her from deputy to assistant solicitor and that these problems existed over a year prior to her termination. Mr. Wilson responded that regarding the Myrtle Beach Police Department and the Highway Patrol, it is his policy not to recuse himself unless he has some personal connection to the case. Motions eventually were made and granted for his recusal in the two above cases.
Mr. Wilson testified that the secretaries were reassigned as a result of the number of secretaries not growing as quickly as the number of assistant solicitors. In essence, each secretary had to work for more than one assistant solicitor.
Mr. Wilson testified that it was no secret that Ms. Prince intended to run against him, but their working relationship developed problems long before Ms. Prince's intention to seek office as Solicitor.
Mr. Wilson further testified that he met with Ms. Prince and the victim's mother, expressed to them that the autopsy was critical evidence in the case, and said that he would release it after his investigation was completed. He stated that Ms. Prince then contacted the pathologist attempting to obtain the autopsy report, and that she did not reveal until later in that conversation that she was no longer with the Solicitor's office. Mr. Wilson admits sending Ms. Prince a letter, but asserted that it was not threatening.
Ms. Cindy Faye Lancaster alleged that at some point during the prosecution of her rape case, she became distressed with the way the Solicitor's office was handling the case. She sent a letter to the State Ombudsman's office expressing her concerns. She then alleged that Mr. Wilson told his assistant solicitors to dismiss the case in retaliation for her contacting the Ombudsman's office.
Mr. Wilson responded that when this rape case was tried, it resulted in a hung jury. His most experienced rape prosecutor worked on the case, as well as an investigator who was a retired FBI agent. When the jury was polled, they said they did not believe the story of the victim and that was the reason the case resulted in a hung jury. When the experienced prosecutor concluded that she could not win the case, Mr. Wilson decided to dismiss the case. Mr. Wilson testified that the dismissal had nothing to do with Ms. Lancaster contacting the Ombudsman's office.
Mr. Robert Lee testified in support of Mr. Wilson. Mr. Lee practices law in Florence and testified that he became acquainted with Mr. Wilson as Solicitor when Mr. Lee was appointed on a capital case in Marlboro County. Mr. Lee testified that the case was over two years old with over ten defendants and a total of fifteen lawyers involved. Mr. Wilson had the case ready for trial in three months.
Mr. Lee testified that none of the lawyers in the case were from Horry County, but rather from Columbia, Camden, Florence, and Darlington. None of the attorneys knew Mr. Wilson or had tried a case with him. They found him to be more than forthright, and he gave open access to the evidence.
Mr. Lee further testified, "I found him to be an incredible person to deal with[.]" Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Wilson was even-tempered, honest, and that he "recognized that he had a duty not just to the State, but to the defense and to the law."
Mr. Don Zelenka testified in support of Mr. Wilson and stated that he was asked by the Attorney General to appear before the Commission on behalf of that office. Mr. Zelenka testified that he has known Mr. Wilson since law school. At the Attorney General's office, Mr. Zelenka was initially assigned to state post conviction relief cases in which an attorney's competence is usually challenged. Mr. Zelenka further testified that when Mr. Wilson was a public defender, Mr. Wilson made it clear about the good quality of his representation of his clients during the post conviction relief action. In addition, according to Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Wilson also acknowledged any deficiencies in his representation.
During the time Mr. Wilson was at the Solicitor's office, Mr. Zelenka was Chief Deputy Attorney General over the Criminal Division. Mr. Zelenka testified that he found Mr. Wilson to be a very willing public servant and he found professionally that Mr. Wilson "left no stone unturned."
The Commission carefully considered the information presented, factoring in the nature of the complaints. Balanced with the fact that Mr. Wilson has enjoyed election twice as Solicitor, the Commission concluded that there were questions about Mr. Wilson's judgment in indicting the school board members and subsequently dismissing those cases. However, in Mr. Wilson's role as Solicitor, his actions were not disqualifying and not without explanation.
The Commission did find troubling Mr. Wilson's misuse and abuse of his subpoena power regarding the school board members. However, all of the citizens involved were represented by counsel and their counsel failed to object to or disregard the unauthorized subpoena.
In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the Commission concluded that Mr. Wilson's conduct did not disqualify him as a candidate.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Wilson reported that he is not listed in Martindale-Hubbell. He has been an elected official since 1981 and a prosecutor since 1988.
Mr. Wilson reported that between 1983 and 1986, he was appointed by County Council to the Horry County Airport Committee. Between 1985 and 1986, he was appointed by the Conway City Council to the Planning and Zoning Board. From 1986 through 1992, Mr. Wilson served as an at-large member of the Conway City Council. In 1990 and again in 1994, Mr. Wilson was elected Solicitor for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Wilson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Wilson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Wilson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Since graduation from law school, Mr. Wilson worked for the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Charleston Division Branch Office in Conway, South Carolina, from 1977 to 1979. His primary duties included representation of indigents in civil and administrative hearings, including Family Court, Social Security Administration, and appeals to Federal Court and Federal Court Civil matters, as well as Magistrate's Court and landlord-tenant matters.
Between 1979 and 1981, Mr. Wilson was the managing attorney for Neighborhood Legal Assistance Branch Office, supervising five attorneys and five support staff. During this time, he continued to maintain a full caseload.
Between 1981 and 1988, Mr. Wilson worked as an assistant Public Defender for Horry County. His duties were to represent indigent defendants charged with criminal offenses. His caseload consisted of only General Sessions Court offenses ranging from shoplifting--second offense to murder and death penalty cases.
In 1985, his full-time Public Defender position changed to a part-time contractual relationship. In 1985, he became a solo private practitioner and engaged in the general practice of law. His practice was approximately 40% criminal law due to his contract with the Horry County Public Defender's Office.
Between 1981 and 1988, Mr. Wilson personally acted as lead or sole attorney in over 75 murders, armed robbery, burglary, and other felony jury trials. During this same period, he acted as lead counsel on five death penalty trials and co-counsel on three more cases involving the death penalty. Additionally, he personally handled one appeal to the State Supreme Court, Frank Sosebee v. State, 284 S.C. 411, 326 S.E.2d 654 (1984).
Between January 1988 and 1991, Mr. Wilson was appointed Chief Deputy Solicitor for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. His responsibility was to supervise all staff, including all six assistant solicitors, two investigators, and ten secretarial staff. He managed the court docket, advised law enforcement and court personnel and handled and prosecuted major felony crimes such as murder, armed robbery, felony DUI, and kidnapping.
In November 1991, Mr. Wilson was elected Solicitor for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit and was re-elected in 1994. He is the prosecutor for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, which includes Horry and Georgetown counties. He is responsible for the prosecution of all criminal cases in the circuit and is a constitutional officer. As Solicitor, Mr. Wilson has personally prosecuted over 75 murders, rapes, felony drug, and felony DUI jury trials. While maintaining a heavy personal caseload, he has been able to increase his staff from six to 21 attorneys, increase support staff from ten to 35, and more than double his local budget to reduce the caseload of office attorneys from over 300 cases to under 100 cases.
Mr. Wilson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) Federal: None
(b) State: Almost daily
(c) Other: Magistrate's Court infrequently
Mr. Wilson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 0%
(b) Criminal: 100%
(c) Domestic: 0%
Mr. Wilson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 25% - 30%
(b) Non-jury: 70% - 75%
Mr. Wilson provided that he usually acted as sole counsel, and an assistant solicitor would aid him occasionally.
•The following is Mr. Wilson's account of his most significant litigated matters:
(a) State v. Johnnie Kenneth Register, 92-GS-26-525, 419 S.E.2d 771, 1992 and 476 S.E.2d 153. This case involved one of the most gruesome murders in the history of the State, and certainly the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. It was one of the first death penalty cases to rely on contested DNA evidence. The case contained a number of significant constitutional and legal issues.
(b) State v. Rebecca Smith, 90-GS-26-1274, 309 S.C. 442, 424 S.E.2d 496(1992). This case involved the murder and robbery of her husband by herself, her paramour, her son and a witchcraft believing nephew. This case was significant because it was his first prosecution of a death case. Smith became the first woman to receive a death sentence in South Carolina in almost 50 years. The case was latter remanded by the Supreme Court, and she received a life sentence on re-trial.
(c) State v. Frank Sosebee, 1984---284 S.C. 441, 326 S.E.2d 654 (1984). Mr. Sosebee was a soldier stationed at Myrtle Beach Air Force Base. He was accused of rape and kidnaping. This case is significant because as a young, inexperienced attorney, a Public Defender with less than two years of courtroom experience, he encountered a judge who was rude, intimidating and who consistently invoked his opinions about his client's guilt in the trial of the case. He personally handled the appeal to the State Supreme Court because he felt his client had been denied a fair trial.
(d) State v. Beans & Stoltz, 95-GS-26-1195, S.C. Supreme Court Opinion 2699. This case involved nude dancing, lewd and lascivious conduct at a local adult club. This case is important because it represented his efforts to clean up the proliferation of lewd and lascivious conduct in Myrtle Beach. Additionally, significant State and Constitutional law questions were involved.
(e) State v. J. Archie Lee, 92-GS-26-1881, 1952, 1957, 93-GS-26-441, 442, 440 and 1881. Mr. Lee was a well known local politician who became a Magistrate in Horry County. Multiple women charged they went to Lee for legal matters and he would fondle, touch their breasts, ask for sex, and touch their buttocks. He used his office to exact sexual favors. Lee pleaded guilty to multiple counts of misconduct. Later the Federal authorities indicted Lee for Civil Rights violations. He was sentenced to one year in prison, which he is now serving.
Mr. Wilson listed no civil appeals that he has personally handled.
Mr. Wilson reported that he served as a part-time municipal recorder for the Town of Atlantic Beach from 1982 to 1984. This court primarily handled traffic-related offenses and city ordinance violations.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
Several witnesses testified in opposition to Mr. Wilson's candidacy. Many of the concerns were directed at Mr. Wilson's temperament and fitness for judicial office. An overview of the witnesses' testimony is outlined above in the "Character" section. The Commission was troubled by the manner in which the entire school board incident was handled by Mr. Wilson, as well as the abuse of the subpoenas and would caution him in the use of the power of his office. However, in viewing Mr. Wilson's career in total, the Commission does not think the allegations regarding Mr. Wilson's temperament should disqualify him from judicial office.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Wilson is married to Jennifer Denise Peters Wilson and has four children: Kia T. Wilson (graduate student, age 23); Ralph J. Wilson, Jr. (undergraduate student, age 22); Hannah M. Wilson (age 1); and Rachel L. Wilson (3 months).
Mr. Wilson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) Horry County Bar (member since 1979);
(b) South Carolina Bar (member since 1977);
(c) National Bar Association (member since 1988);
(d) National Association of District Attorneys (member since 1990);
(e) Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation (member since 1989).
Mr. Wilson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Friendship Baptist Church (Trustee, Co-chairman Budget Committee);
(b) Anchor Bank Advisory Board;
(c) Craig Wall School of Business Board;
(d) Sea Haven Boys Home;
(e) Horry County United Way Board;
(f) Horry County Branch of American Heart Fund;
(g) Horry County Branch of American Cancer Society.
Mr. Wilson reported that in 1994 he received the South Carolina Advocate of the Year Award presented by the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. In 1995, he received The Daniel McLeod Award presented by the South Carolina Department of Revenue. In 1996, Mr. Wilson received the Certificate of Appreciation presented by the greater Saint Stephen AME Church for outstanding service.
•Mr. Wilson stated, "I think it is important for you to know that while in law school, I worked two jobs, teaching tutorials to first year black law students and worked at the Richland County Public Defender's Office. My wife and I had two children, one born the month before I entered law school and the second born at the end of my first year of law school. In spite of this, I graduated on time, took the bar, and passed the first time. Because of this I graduated deeply in debt, having borrowed through student loans and family. The next five or six years were difficult times financially. However, I survived that period clearing up[.]"
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Cothran meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Master-in-Equity.
Mr. Cothran was born on December 12, 1921. He is 76 years old and a resident of Manning, South Carolina. Mr. Cothran provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1949.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Cothran.
Mr. Cothran reported that he had been sued. His office closed a loan for a client who had two judgments against him. The office paid off the judgments to the holder. The holder was supposed to use some of the proceeds to pay a joint credit card between the two but failed to do so ($3,800). When the bank sued the client, he made Mr. Cothran a party and cross-claimed. A motion for summary judgment was granted in Mr. Cothran's favor.
Mr. Cothran demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Cothran 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. Cothran testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Cothran to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission further found that Mr. Cothran has met expectations in the area of professional and academic ability.
Mr. Cothran reported that he had 12 hours of CLE in 1995. He reported that he took 18.42 hours in 1996. He took 15 hours of CLE in 1997. Prior to this, Mr. Cothran reported that he was exempt due to his 30 years of practice.
Mr. Cothran reported that he taught a variety of night classes at Veterans' School for approximately three years at twelve hours a week.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cothran did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cothran did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Cothran has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
Mr. Cothran reported that he owns a one-third interest in a 69-lot trailer park.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Cothran was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Cothran reported that he served in the military from January 20, 1942, to September 10, 1945. He was in the Army Air Corps, T/Sgt. 14073070. He received a Honorable Discharge.
Mr. Cothran reported his Martindale-Hubbell rating as "AV."
Mr. Cothran reported that he was asked to run for election to continue as a probate judge and special referee in June 1996. He further reported that he lost by three votes.
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Cothran appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Cothran appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Cothran was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1949.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Cothran reported he started a general practice in 1950 and has had a number of partners over the years. His son joined him in his practice in 1977. Mr. Cothran was then appointed as a Probate Judge on June 6, 1995.
Mr. Cothran reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a) Federal: None;
(b) State: Bi-weekly
(c) Other: Probate-Weekly
Mr. Cothran reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a) Civil: 100%
(b) Criminal: 0%
(c) Domestic: 0%
Mr. Cothran reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a) Jury: 5%
(b) Non-jury: 95%
Mr. Cothran provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
•Mr. Cothran stated his most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Cook v. Cook, Florence County;
(b) Jackson v. Jackson, Sumter County;
(c) Two Lee v. Burgess, Clarendon County. (Mr. Cothran stated he broke attorney J.K. Breedin's will although the time for contesting had expired.
Mr. Cothran stated his expertise was property matters involving future interest and unborn and future born interest that other law firms said could not be done. However, Mr. Cothran did a number of them.
Mr. Cothran reported that he has personally handled civil appeals. However, he is unable to remember the names because when he was appointed as Probate Judge, his files were packed in boxes and stored in his attic and in the office where his son still practices. It would take months to find them. He thinks he appealed to the Supreme Court personally four times and won all four. One other time before the Supreme Court, his associate argued and lost. Mr. Cothran argued as an associate attorney once before the Court of Appeals and lost. He had one case which he tried in District Court in Charleston and won. The government appealed to Richmond but dropped it before it was argued.
Mr. Cothran reported that he has been a probate judge since June 1995.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Cothran's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Cothran is a widower. He has two children: R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr. (Deputy Solicitor, age 46); and Deborah Cothran Joseph (Secretary, age 42).
Mr. Cothran reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association (Circuit Vice President in the 1960s);
(b) Clarendon County Bar Association (President in the 1960s or 1970s).
Mr. Cothran provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Manning Lions Club (Charter Member at age 18);
(b) American Legion (President twice).
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Davis meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Master-in-Equity.
Mr. Davis was born on October 28, 1946. He is 51 years old and a resident of West Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Davis provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since November 1975.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis reported that on two occasions he has been sued along with the Supreme Court by a pro se litigant. Both cases were dismissed by the Federal Courts.
Mr. Davis demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Davis 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. Davis testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Davis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Davis reported that he has attended the South Carolina Judicial Conference every year since 1977. He has attended SC-Bar sponsored CLE seminars on a variety of subjects (Real Estate, Appellate Practice, etc.). He has attended several ABA-sponsored seminars for Appellate Court clerks and on Bar Admissions.
Mr. Davis provided that he has lectured at the South Carolina Bar Association CLE and JCLE Seminars. The topics on which he lectured included Appellate Court Rules, Circuit Court Practice, and Probate Court Practice. He has also lectured on Appellate Court Practice at a CLE sponsored by the Lexington County Bar Association.
Mr. Davis reported that he had published the following article: Motions in the South Carolina Supreme Court, South Carolina Lawyer, Volume 1, (Number 2,) September/October 1989, Page 13.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Davis did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Davis did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Davis has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Davis was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Davis reported that he served as a Captain on active duty in the U.S. Army from 1968-1972 (Captain, Corps of Engineers). He was a Captain on reserve duty from 1972-1980 and was Honorably Discharged in 1980 (Captain JAG Corps).
Mr. Davis reported that he is listed in Martindale-Hubbell as a Clerk of Court. Because he is not engaged in the private practice of law, he is not rated.
Mr. Davis reported that he served as a Notary Public from 1976-1986. He has served as Clerk of Court for the South Carolina Supreme Court since 1983.
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Davis appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Davis appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Davis was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in November 1975.
After his graduation from law school, Mr. Davis served as a law clerk to J. Woodrow Lewis, Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, from 1975 to 1976. He was in private practice from 1976-1977 in the areas of real estate, domestic, probate, business, and tax law.
From 1977 until 1983, Mr. Davis was the Chief Staff Attorney for the South Carolina Supreme Court doing 70% Criminal, 20% Civil, and 10% Domestic work. In this position he supervised eight other attorneys. Since 1983, Mr. Davis has been the Clerk of Court for the South Carolina Supreme Court.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Davis' temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Davis is married to Rose McLeod Davis. He has three children: Clyde Norwood Davis, III (Civil Engineer at Duke Power Co., age 28); Preston Lee Davis (self-employed salesman, age 26); Joel Anthony Davis (University of SC, junior-Mechanical Engineering, age 21).
Mr. Davis reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
(a) South Carolina Bar Association;
(b) Former member of Executive Committee of the National Conference of Appellate Court Clerks; and
(c) Former member of Executive Committee of the Committee on Appellate Staff Attorneys.
Mr. Davis provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a) Grace Bible Alliance Church (Elder and Governing Board Member);
(b) Christian Prison Ministries, Inc. (Vice Chairman);
(c) Second Chance Ministries (Chairman).
•Mr. Davis stated, "I am regularly in Court; however, it is as Clerk to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, a position I have held for 15 years. My previous legal experience includes over six years as Chief Staff Attorney of the Supreme Court, one year as law clerk to former Chief Justice J. Woodrow Lewis, and one year in the general practice of law with Timothy Farr of Greenville, South Carolina.
In my position as Clerk of Court, I have maintained daily contact with the law. I have listened to hundreds of oral arguments, most of which focused on some alleged trial error, and have drafted numerous opinions and orders. For the last 15 years I have proof-read every opinion issued by the Court. I have been heavily involved in drafting various Rules of Court. These duties have given me a unique perspective on trial practice and have prepared me to handle the trial duties of a judge.
The Clerk of Court is the chief managerial officer for the Court, with responsibilities over Bar Admissions, and a 30,000 volume law library as well as the entire clerical operation. I have daily contact with other court and governmental officials, attorneys, litigants, members of the press and the general public. I have learned to deal politely, yet effectively, with a wide variety of people in all types of situations.
The Court has delegated to me the discretion to rule upon some procedural motions and the leeway to resolve procedural problems not covered directly by the rules of Appellate Practice. In performing all these duties I have developed strong people skills as well as a clear understanding of how a judge should conduct himself or herself.
As Chief Staff Attorney at the Supreme Court for seven years, I supervised the work of eight attorneys. Our work involved reviewing the trial court records, summarizing the facts, researching the issues and drafting a report to the Court on each case. Often I was called upon to defend both my work and the work of other staff attorneys in oral presentation to the Court.
As a result of reading literally hundreds of trial transcripts, I am familiar with not only the substantive law, but also the procedural and evidentiary aspects of a trial. I have been exposed to a broad range of cases including criminal, tort, contract, real estate, probate, family, tax and administrative law.
I have been in private practice, starting a law firm in Greenville with a law school classmate. Consequently, I do understand the time and financial demands of a law practice and the stress these demands place upon lawyers and their families.
I served several years as a military officer, two of which were as a Company Commander. This experience helped develop the strength of character to make the decisions necessary to get a job done correctly and in a timely manner.
There are other very important qualities of a good judge such as the ability to work with people, fairness, impartiality, good work habits, an even-tempered personality, and the ability to listen well and decide each case on its own merits. I submit that I have demonstrated these characteristics in my work at the Court.
I have had over 20 years working closely with the finest judges in South Carolina, listening, learning and gaining insight into the judicial system that few have had the privilege of doing. I believe my years of working as a lawyer for the South Carolina Supreme Court is equivalent to a varied private practice.
I believe that after reviewing the breadth of my work experience, you will find I am in a position of knowing and understanding the entire judicial system and that my unique work experience will be an asset to the bench."
The following persons were unanimously found legally qualified:
F. Lee Prickett, Jr. First Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
James F. Walsh, Jr. First Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
James C. Williams, Jr. First Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
John R. McCravy, III Eighth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
John M. Rucker Eighth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr. Eighth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
Steven H. John Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 2
Paula H. Thomas Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 2
Ralph J. Wilson Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 2
Ralph F. Cothran Master-in-Equity, Clarendon County
Clyde N. Davis, Jr. Master-in-Equity, Lexington County
Respectfully submitted:
/s/Rep. F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chm. /s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, V-Chm.
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby /s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Rep. Ralph W. Canty /s/Rep. William Douglas Smith
/s/Dr. Harry M. Lightsey, Jr. /s/Judge Curtis G. Shaw
/s/Richard S. Fisher, Esquire /s/Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester
On motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent, the Report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission was ordered printed in the Journal.
On motion of Senator RANKIN with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. Malcolm S. Fowler of Myrtle Beach, S.C.
At 11:20 A.M., on motion of Senator LANDER, the Senate adjourned to meet next Monday, June 8, 1998, at 11:00 A.M., under the provisions of H. 5159, the Sine Die Resolution, for the purpose of taking up local matters and uncontested matters which have previously received unanimous consent to be taken up.
This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 10:43 A.M.