Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

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

Date Draft Report Issued:   Tuesday, May 2, 2000
Date and Time

Final Report Issued:     10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 4, 2000

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. 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 the 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 these seats 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 Circuit Court candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on that particular court. These questions were posed

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 "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 report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.

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;

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 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

This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, and Circuit Court, At-large Seat 3.

Commission's Findings:   NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Anderson was born on October 13, 1959. He is 40 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Anderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.
Judge Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Anderson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures in seeking this office.
Judge Anderson testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Anderson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

Judge Anderson reported that he has published the following:
"(a)   "A Survey on Attributes Considered Important for Presidential Candidates," Carolina Undergraduate Sociology Symposium, April 17, 1980;
(b)   "An Overview of Practice and Procedure Before the Administrative Law Judge Division,"South Carolina Trial Lawyer , Summer 1996."

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Anderson reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Anderson reported that he was appointed Assistant Attorney General in 1985, and that he served in that capacity until January 1995.

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

(8)   Experience:
Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.
Judge Anderson described his legal experience as follows:
"My initial responsibilities at the Attorney General's office were the extradition functions in the Criminal Division. Afterwards, I was transferred to the Criminal Prosecution Section, where I prosecuted criminal cases, as well as maintained my extradition duties. While in the Prosecution Section, I was also assigned the position as Counsel to the State Ethics Commission.
With the passage of the Statewide Grand Jury Act, I occupied two offices. One was located in the Prosecution Section while the other was in the Grand Jury Section. Once the Grand Jury was firmly established, I returned to the Government and Civil Litigation Division/Prosecution Section. There I resumed all of my original duties with the addition of the following:
(a)   Committee Attorney for the State Employee Grievance Committee;
(b)   Prosecutor for the Engineering and Land Surveyor's Board; and Medical Board Prosecutions, Attorney General Opinions and Criminal Appeals."
Judge Anderson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   Infrequently
(b)   State:     20 or more times a year"
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     75%
(b)   Criminal:   25%
(c)   Domestic:   none"
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:     25%

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

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Judge Ralph King "Tripp" Anderson, III, to be a qualified and highly regarded judicial candidate. The committee wholeheartedly approves of his candidacy for a circuit court judgeship."
Judge Anderson is married to Linda Corley Anderson.
Judge Anderson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar - November 1984."
Judge Anderson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Shandon Baptist Church - Sunday school teacher."

Commission's Findings:   NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Collins meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. Collins was born on April 20, 1962. She is 38 years old and a resident of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Ms. Collins provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Collins.
Ms. Collins demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Collins reported that she has made campaign expenditures totaling $143.11 for letters of introduction, resumes, postage, and business cards, which she has appropriately reported to both the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
Ms. Collins testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. Collins testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. Collins to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Collins described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Collins did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Collins did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Collins has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Collins was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Ms. Collins reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

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

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

(8)   Experience:
Ms. Collins was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.

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

Commission's Findings:   NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Cooper meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper 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. Cooper reported that he has made $56.10 in campaign expenditures for postage.
Mr. Cooper testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Cooper 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. Cooper to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Cooper described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"01/06/95     Limited Liability Companies;
02/11/95     The Nuts & Bolts of a Construction Project;
06/02/95     Annual Meeting: Consumer Law Section;
10/13/95     NC/SC Construction Law Seminar;
02/02/96     SC Campaign Finance Law;
05/16/96     ADR Awakening 1996, Southeast ADR;
04/25/96     Circuit Court Civil Mediation;
01/24/97     Limited Liability Companies;
09/25/97     Premises Liability;
06/11/98     Current Developments in Real Estate;
06/11/99     Probate, Estate Planning and Trust;

Mr. Cooper reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"1981   "Arbitration or Litigation", Lecturer, South Carolina Bar CLE;
1993   "Alternative Dispute Resolution", Panelist;
1995   "The Nuts and Bolts of a Construction Project", Program Coordinator, South Carolina Bar, CLE;
1995   "New Circuit Court Arbitration Rules", Panelist."
Mr. Cooper additionally provided: "I am a member of the American Arbitration Association National Arbitration Training Faculty. Since 1996, I have traveled around the United States giving one (1) day seminars to new AAA arbitrators. All of these seminars have qualified for a CLE credit in the States where CLE is mandatory. I am paid a per diem and expenses to conduct these seminars."
Mr. Cooper reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cooper did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cooper did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Cooper has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Cooper was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Cooper reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
Mr. Cooper reported that he has not served in the military. He reported that he has served as an elected member of the Kershaw County Council from 1990 to the present.

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

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Cooper was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.
Mr. Cooper reported the following experience:
"1968-70     Partner - West, Holland, Furman & Cooper;
1971-74     G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Attorney at Law;
1971-74     Assistant Solicitor, Kershaw County;
1974-76     Associate Probate Judge, Kershaw County;
1975-77     Partner - West, Cooper, Bowen & Smoot;
1977-85     Senior Partner - Cooper, Bowen, Beard & Smoot;
1985-95     The Cooper Firm;
1995-Present   Partner - Cooper & Todd, LLP."
Mr. Cooper provided:
"My practice began in 1967 as a general practice concentrating on real estate, family law and Plaintiff's work. When my partner, John West, was elected Governor in 1970, the firm broke up and I went out on my own. I became an Assistant Solicitor for Kershaw County and continued my general practice. In the 1970's my practice involved corporate representation, personal injury and other forms of civil litigation. When John West left the Governor's office in 1974, we formed a new firm with the intention of establishing a statewide practice with offices in Camden, Columbia and Hilton Head. We started acquiring statewide work when John was named Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. After his departure, the firm continued into the 1980's and I eventually returned to a sole practice. About this time (1977), I started an active construction law practice which continues today. I have continued the general practice in Camden and Columbia with a focus on real estate, business torts and estate planning. My concentration, however, continues to be on construction law. Since the mid-1980's I have devoted a substantial amount of time to my arbitration and mediation work with the American Arbitration Association and the court mandated pilot projects in Florence and Richland Counties."
Mr. Cooper further provided:
"Criminal Experience:
From 1971-1974, I was Assistant Solicitor for Kershaw County. John Foard was Solicitor of the Fifth Judicial Circuit until his defeat in 1974 by Jim Anders. During my te rm, I handled, by plea or trial, all

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

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Mr. G. Thomas Cooper, Jr. to be a qualified and highly regarded judicial candidate. The committee positively approves of his candidacy for a circuit court judgeship."
Mr. Cooper is married to Hope Howell Cooper. He has 6 children: Sloane Cooper Ellis, 23, homemaker; Sarah Riley Cooper, 31, realtor; Patricia D. Cooper, 27, Webmaster; Hope B. Langley, 39, Real Estate Paralegal (stepchild); Martha B. Jones, 37, Art Teacher (stepchild); and Lisa B. Adams, 35, artist (stepchild).
Mr. Cooper reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   Kershaw County Bar Association (1967-Present) President 1970;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association (1976-Present)(Fee Dispute Committee, 1978-84 and Legislative Affairs Committee, 1986-90);
(c)   American Bar Association (1997-Present);
(d)   South Carolina Council for Conflict Resolution (1977-Present)."
Mr. Cooper provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Camden Country Club President (1976-77);

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Cromer meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Cromer was born on April 19, 1963. He is 37 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Cromer provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Cromer to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Cromer described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   1999   How To Try a Wreck Case   05-14-99

7th Annual Probate Bench/Bar   09-10-99
(b)   1998   6th Annual Probate Bench/Bar   09-11-98

Ethics CLE   09-21-98

Practice & Procedure in Traffic Court/DUI   10-02-98
(c)   1997   Governmental Ethics   01-02-97

Civil Rights Symposium   09-26-97

Masters in Trial   12-12-97
(d)   1996   4th Annual Probate Bench/Bar   09-06-96

South Carolina Tort Law Update   09-13-96
(e)   1995   1995 SC Trial Lawyer Annual Convention   08-10-95"
Mr. Cromer reported that he has participated in the following lectures: "While I have never been a college or law school professor on a regular basis, I have guest lectured an ethics class for Professor O'Neal Smalls at U.S.C. Law School, as well as English classes (Southern Fiction) for Professor Louis Henry at Clemson University. Lastly, I have guest lectured several classes at the University of South

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cromer did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cromer did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Cromer has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Cromer 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. Cromer reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Mr. Cromer reported that he has held the following elected public offices:
"(a)   1999 to present: Reading Clerk, South Carolina House of Representatives. Elected by House Members in 1999.
(b)   1990 to 1998: South Carolina House of Representatives, District 80, Richland County. Elected four (4) successive terms of office."

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

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

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Cromer was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.
Mr. Cromer reported his legal experience as the following:
"July 1988 - September 1989, Walleck, Shane & Stanard, Woodland Hills, California. The general character of my practice was general civil litigation, primarily defense practice. As counsel for the San Fernando Valley Board of Realtors, I was an associate who performed research and produced memoranda on various legal

[1] I further expound on this ability, as exemplified by my legislative history, in my answer to question 47 of this P.D.Q.

Around May 5, 1990, Judge Matthew Perry ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered that I be allowed to collect my petition signatures and be placed on the ballot, provided the petition requirements were met. Attorney General Travis Medlock immediately appealed. Several months later, my appeal was heard

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

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Mr. J.L. Mann "Bubba" Cromer, Jr., to be a qualified and well-regarded judicial candidate. The committee approves of his candidacy for a circuit court judgeship."
Mr. Cromer reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations;
"(a)   American Bar Association;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   Richland County Bar Association;
(d)   California State Bar Association;
(e)   Bar Association for the District of Columbia."
Mr. Cromer provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Lower Richland Ruritan Club, Secretary and Vice-President;
(b)   Recipient of Governor's Order of the Palmetto;
(c)   S.C. Association of Taxpayers Friend of the Taxpayers Award;

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. DeWitt meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. DeWitt was born on August 25, 1955. She is 45 years old and a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina. Ms. DeWitt 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 1983.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. DeWitt.
Ms. DeWitt demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. DeWitt reported that she has made $31.56 in campaign expenditures for printing and envelopes.
Ms. DeWitt testified 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;

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. DeWitt to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. DeWitt described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   10-29-99     Tort Law Update;
(b)   06-12-99     S.C. Bar Annual Meeting;

Family Law Section/Misuse of Computers;
(c)   05-14-99     How to Try a Wreck Case;
(d)   01-22-       S.C. Bar Mid Year Meeting;

01-23-99     Employment & Labor Law Section;

Family Law Section;

Solo & Small Firm Practitioners;

Business Valuation Seminar;
(e)   11-07-98     Ethics for Family Law Practitioners;
(f)   11-06-98     Family Court Bench/Bar;
(g)   10-23-98     Persuasion and Communication in the Courtroom;
(h)   10-02-98     Traffic/DUI: Confused About the Changes;
(i)   08-28-98     Domestic Practice: Hot Tips;
(j)   07-10-98     Child Protective Services Act;
(k)   03-21-97     Hidden Issues in Cases Involving Children;
(l)   12-06-96     1996 Family Court Bench/Bar Update;
(m)   11-08-96     Auto Insurance Update;
(n)   04-12-96     Understanding the New S.C. Criminal Rules;
(o)   01-12-96     Worker's Compensation Practice in S.C.;
(p)   11-17-95     Marital Litigation Update;
(q)   08-24-95     The Proposed New S.C. Rules of Evidence;
(r)   01-07-95     Civility in the Profession;
Ms. DeWitt reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   "H ot Tips" Domestic Relations, S.C. Bar CLE, Columbia, S.C., Corroborating the Client's Story. September 24, 1999. Discussion of Rule 11, ethical requirements and practice tips for obtaining corroborating evidence;

(5)   Reputation:
Ms. DeWitt reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

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

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

(8)   Experience:
Ms. DeWitt was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983. She described her legal experience as follows:
"Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Walterboro, South Carolina (serving Hampton and Colleton Counties). Hired as staff attorney in Fall 1983, served as managing attorney from 1984 until June 1988. Represented clients at social security, FmHa, employment security commission, VA and DSS administrative hearings, appeals of ALJ decisions to state and federal courts. Also represented tenants in Magistrate Court evictions, defendants in foreclosures in Federal Court, foreclosures, collection actions and claim and delivery actions in Common Pleas. Brought claims against landlords under S.C. Landlord Tenant Act, filed claims under Consumer Protection Code, Fair Debt Collection Act, and with Manufactured Housing Board. Filed an action in Probate Court on behalf of a deaf client seeking a redetermination of his competency, permission to handle his own funds and specific accounting. Some involvement with actions to quiet title and other real estate matters. Also represented clients in Family Court. Family Court and Probate Court appointments. These files are not available to me for purposes of obtaining details on procedural history. I also supervised

Also defended media requests for access to transfer hearing. Ex Parte: The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette, Appellants In Re: Christopher F., a minor, Defendant. 417 S.E.2d 575 (SC 1992) Both appeals handled by South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense.

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

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Ms. DeWitt meets the constitutional qualifications and is possessed of the requisite character, reputation, ability, fitness, experience, and temperament. Ms. DeWitt is recommended for Circuit Court At-Large Seat 3 with one observation--the Committee noted that Ms. DeWitt has limited civil trial experience."
Ms. DeWitt has three children: Jenny P Sopshier (age 26, sales/supervisor); Gregory M. Piazza (age 23, U.S. Navy); James Tyler DeWitt (age 10, student).
Ms. DeWitt reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   S.C. Bar Association, member, Family Law Council 1998 - 2000;
(b)   Beaufort County Bar Association;
(c)   Beaufort County Family Court Bar Association, secretary;
(d)   American Bar Association;
(e)   S.C. Women's Law Association."

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Epting meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Epting was born on January 2, 1942. He is 58 years old and a resident of Irmo, South Carolina. Judge Epting 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 Epting.
Judge Epting 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 Epting reported that he has spent less than $100 in campaign expenditures for printing resumes and letters of introduction.
Judge Epting testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Epting to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Epting described his past continuing legal or judicial education as follows:
"During the last five years my legal and judicial have exceeded the total hours required by the bar and court administration:
(a)   Legal: Evidence, domestic relations, health care law, ethics, trial procedures;
(b)   Judicial: Criminal Justice Academy: Search and Seizure, bonds, domestic violence, substance abuse, Supreme Court updates. National Judicial College: Opinion Writing, logic. - American Bar Association- Traffic Court Technology."
Judge Epting reported that he has taught the following law related courses:
"Chaired a S.C. Bar CLE on regulated industries focusing primarily on practice before the Public Service Commission.
Presided over mock trial demonstrating trial procedures and evidentiary matters for Criminal Justice Academy continuing education seminar for magistrates October 1999."
Judge Epting reported that he has not published any books or articles.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Epting did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Epting did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Epting has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Epting was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

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

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

(8)   Experience:
Judge Epting was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.
Judge Epting described his legal experience as follows:
"Legal: General Practice (the early years- Berry, Lightsey, Gibbes and Bowers (1969-1973). Every good legal career is built on a strong foundation. I was fortunate to work with Harry M. Lightsey, Jr. during my early years. I, along with other young attorneys such Nikki Setzler and Jim Richardson, assisted Harry Lightsey, Jr. as he handled significant constitutional cases such as senate reapportionment, school desegregation, and the beginning of the large rate increase era for private utilities. The lessons learned about the practice of law during this period were invaluable.
Also, early in my career I acquired my initial education in trying cases in circuit court. Lesson 1- topic - summation - teacher - Honorable Marion Gressette. My co-counsel and I received a direct verdict on a collection claim in circuit court, but Senator Gressette made such a powerful closing on his counterclaim that he won the case; Lesson 2 - Venue. During this period Henry Kirkland, a fine trial lawyer, associated me to try a will contest with him in Newberry County. Our opponent was Thomas Pope, Sr. Mr. Pope was relentless. We thought we had victory after a hung jury on the first trial but were beaten soundly on the retrial. Lesson: Good trial lawyers are good anywhere, but they are terrific in their own briar patch.
(1973-2000) Epting Law Firm - primarily as sole practitioner in space sharing with other lawyers and for the past two years as an LLC in partnership with my son. Practice included probate, domestic, wills,

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

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Judge Joseph M. "Mickey" Epting to be a qualified and highly regarded judicial candidate. The committee wholeheartedly approves of his candidacy for a circuit court judgeship."
Judge Epting is married to Nancy G. Epting. He has two children: Joseph M. Epting, Jr. - 30 - attorney; and Kristin E. Epting - 28 - Atlanta Chamber of Commerce Staff.
Judge Epting reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   American Bar Association - Special Court Judges Division;
(b)   South Carolina Summary Court Judges Association;
(c)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(d)   Richland County Bar Association;
(e)   Lexington County Bar Association."

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Geathers meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Geathers was born on April 10, 1961. He is 39 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Geathers provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Geathers.
Judge Geathers 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 Geathers reported that he has made $79 in campaign expenditures for stationery.
Judge Geathers testified 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;

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Geathers to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Geathers described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have satisfied the CLE requirements for each of the past five years. I also attended the National Judicial College for a seminar."
Judge Geathers reported that he has participated in the following lectures: "I lectured on Appellate Practice before the ALJD at a Bar Association program, Appellate Practice in South Carolina. Also, I presented in-house lectures at orientation seminars for new ALJs."
Judge Geathers reported that he has prepared written materials for the lectures noted above.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Geathers did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Geathers did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Geathers has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Geathers 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 Geathers reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

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

(8)   Experience:
Judge Geathers was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.
Judge Geathers reported the following experience:
"I was employed for approximately eight months as the OSHA attorney for the South Carolina Department of Labor upon graduation from law school in 1986. I resigned from the Department of Labor to accept employment with the Office of Senate Research of the South Carolina Senate, where I became Senior Staff Counsel. Upon being elected to Administrative Law Judge Seat #4, I subsequently resigned employment with the Senate.
I have recently been elected to a second term as an ALJ. I believe that my adjudicatory experience as an administrative law judge, which includes presiding over contested case, appellate, and regulatory hearings, would be an asset in presiding over civil and criminal cases. It should be noted that the rules of evidence and the SC Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable in these administrative matters.
To reacquaint myself with civil and criminal law, I have intensely studied, and in some cases outlined portions of, the following authorities: Alex Sanders, et al., South Carolina Trial Handbook (1999); William Shepard McAninch, The Criminal Law of South Carolina, 3rd.; Hon. Ralph King Anderson, Jr., et al., South Carolina Trial Techniques Handbook (1998); Jack B. Swerling, My Little Rules Book-Criminal (1998); and Jack B. Swerling and Richard A. Harpootlian, Criminal Defense, 1997 Bridge The Gap."
Judge Geathers reported the following regarding his judicial experience: "I have served as an Administrative Law Judge since 1995. Pursuant to Section 1-23-600, an Administrative Law Judge is authorized to preside over all hearings of contested cases involving the departments of the executive branch of government in which a single hearing officer is permitted to hear and decide. Exempted, however, are cases brought under OSHA, matters arising under Title 56 of the SC Code of Laws, and hearings mandated by federal law. The ALJD also has appellate jurisdiction over decisions from various boards and commissions. Finally, the ALJD presides over regulation hearings during the promulgation of regulations by a department for which the governing authority is a single director. The ALJ provides the General

(b)   SC Dept. of Labor v. James E. MacDonald, 98-ALJ-11-0360 (contempt order);

(c)   Greenville Metro Treatment Center v. SC Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 97-ALJ-07-0143;

(d)   Charleston Naval Shipyard v. SC Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 96-ALJ- 07-0264 (waiver of federal government's sovereign immunity);

(e)   Julius Murray and George Martin v. SC DHEC, Baptist Healthcare System of SC, Inc. and Richland Memorial Hospital, 97-ALJ-07-0262 (extensive discussion on subject matter jurisdiction and standing)."

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

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Judge John D. Geathers to be a qualified and highly regarded judicial candidate. The committee positively approves of his candidacy for a circuit court judgeship."
Judge Geathers is married to Doris Williams Geathers. He has one child, Lydia Kaden Geathers (age 6).
Judge Geathers reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   North Carolina Bar."
Judge Geathers provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jenkins meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Jenkins was born on August 8, 1947. He is 52 years old and a resident of Travelers Rest, South Carolina. Judge Jenkins provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jenkins.
Judge Jenkins 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 Jenkins reported that he has made campaign expenditures for stationery and postage for sending a letter of interest regarding the announcement of his candidacy.
Judge Jenkins testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Jenkins 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 Jenkins to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Evidence In Juvenile and Family Court (1998)

Advanced Family Law (1997)."
Judge Jenkins reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I have taught the Juvenile Law/Pre-Trial Diversion Course through the sponsorship of the Department of Youth Services and the local Solicitor's Office. It was a ten (10) week course designed to teach juveniles between ages 13-16 responsible civil conduct under the law; giving them exposures through site visits and guest presenters on law enforcement functions. (1986-88)
I have served as a presenter for the SBA's Committee for Indigent Representation on the topic on Judicial Responses to PRO SE Representation (1998).
I have served as a presenter for the Family Court Judges Conference on topic of Judicial Ethics (1998)."
Judge Jenkins reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Jenkins did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jenkins did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jenkins has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Jenkins was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

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

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

(8)   Experience:
Judge Jenkins was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
Judge Jenkins described his legal experience as follows:
"1976-79: Engaged in the active practice of law as a Staff Attorney/Managing Attorney with Legal Services Agency headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina (NLAP, Inc.).
Provided direct legal assistance to indigent clients in the areas of Family Law (50%), State/Federal Housing Law (20%), State/Federal Public Benefit Laws (15%), and State/Federal Consumer Law involved in Claim & Delivery and Deficiency Suits (10)%). Other areas of service provided included the preparation of wills and deeds; and power of attorneys for clients' financial affairs. Yearly caseload exceeded 300 cases.

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

Commission's Findings:   NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Miller meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Miller was born on September 24, 1952. He is 47 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Miller 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. Miller.
Mr. Miller 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. Miller 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. Miller reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Miller testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Miller 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. Miller to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

South Carolina Public Defender Conference;
(c)   1996   Understanding the New South Carolina Criminal Laws;

Greenville County Bar Seminar; Powerful Witness Preparation;
(d)   1995   Greenville County Bar; Seminar Everyday Ethics; Family Law; and Ethics;
(e)   1994   Counseling Negotiation; Advanced Federal Sentencing Guidelines; The Year that Was.
Mr. Miller reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Mr. Miller reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Miller did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Miller did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Miller has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Miller 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. Miller reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

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

(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Miller appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Miller was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.

Federal Regulations Compliance Officer;
April 1980 - June 1981:     Assistant Public Defender for Greenville County;
July 1981 - June 1982:     Sole Practitioner in the General Practice of Law in Greenville, South Carolina;
July 1982 - Present:     Miller and Paschal, Attorneys at Law, General Practice with concentration in Criminal and Civil litigation."
Mr. Miller further reported:
"Experience in Criminal Matters:
My private law practice includes a significant amount of criminal work in the Court of General Sessions. Additionally, I have worked as a part-time Assistant Public Defender for Greenville County for fourteen years. I have handled thousands of criminal cases. These cases have involved a wide variety of matters including: offenses against the person (murder and all other degrees of homicide, all levels of assault and battery, all degrees of criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping and all degrees of robbery); offenses against property (all degrees of burglary and larceny, arson, forgery, breach of trust, shoplifting, and all types of financial transaction crimes); drug offenses (all types of illegal drugs and all degrees of involvement including possession, possession with intent to distribute, distribution and trafficking); traffic offenses (all degrees of driving under the influence including accidents resulting in injury and death, driving under suspension, and failure to stop for police vehicles); crimes against morality (prostitution, indecent exposure, and lewd acts); prison offenses (escape and contraband possession); and violation of probation cases.
I have defended one death penalty case which resulted in a plea to a life sentence.
I have practiced criminal law in the United States District Court for South Carolina since 1982. I have handled all types of federal offenses including drug offenses, weapons offenses, economic offenses, securities fraud, and bank robberies.
My experience in the above listed cases includes bond hearings, motion hearings, guilty pleas, and jury trials to verdict."
Experience in Civil Matters:
"Over the course of my career I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in civil matters. Recently, my civil practice has

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

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Mr. Miller was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Mr. Miller is married to Martha Albrecht Miller. He has two children: Elizabeth, age 16; and E. Walker, age 14.
Mr. Miller reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Greenville County Bar Association (1993 Board of Directors);
(c)   South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
(d)   National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
(e)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;
(f)   American Trial Lawyers Association.
Mr. Miller provided that he has participated in the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"I am currently the President of the Downtown Soccer Association and have been so since 1998; my term will expire at the end of this calendar year. I have been on the Board of Directors since 1996. I have served as a volunteer youth soccer coach throughout the last five years. This organization is a youth soccer club serving approximately 450 young people in the downtown Greenville area. I have supervised the construction of and fund raising for a four-field soccer complex during my term as President. I have played a pivotal role in negotiating a "public-private" partnership with the city of Greenville related to its contemplated construction of ten additional soccer fields at the same location. My participation has included dealing with the head of the City recreation department, the City manager and making a presentation to the City Council and various committees. This city soccer complex will be managed by the Downtown Soccer Association."
Mr. Miller further added:

Commission's Findings:   NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Newman meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Newman was born on November 7, 1951. He is 48 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Newman 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 1981.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Newman.

Mr. Newman 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. Newman reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Newman testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Newman testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Newman did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Newman did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Newman has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Newman 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. Newman reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
He has been Assistant Solicitor of the Third Judicial Circuit since July 1983.

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

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Newman was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1981. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1976-1977     Associate Attorney, Law Office of Elliott Ray Kelley, Cleveland, Ohio;
1977-1982     Partner, Belcher, and Newman, Cleveland, Ohio;
1982-1994     Law Office of Clifton Newman, Kingstree and Columbia, S.C.;
1994-present   Managing Attorney, Newman and Sabb, P.A., Kingstree, Lake City, and Columbia, S.C.;
1983-present   Assistant Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit."
Mr. Newman reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   federal:   Once a year.
(b)   state:     Weekly."
Mr. Newman reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   civil:     50%
(b)   criminal:   48%
(c)   domestic:   2%"
Mr. Newman reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   jury:     20%
(b)   non-jury:   80%"
Mr. Newman provided that he most often served as chief counsel.
The following is Mr. Newman's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Ellis Franklin: 91-GS-45-451. This was as eight-day death penalty trial in Williamsburg County which I participated in as assistant solicitor. The defendant was convicted of murder, rape, burglary, and torture and sentenced to death. The case is significant in that the defendant was given the death penalty by a Williamsburg County jury, the only such verdict in recent history.
(b)   State v. Nathaniel Williams: 87-GS-45-270. This was a death penalty trial in which the defendant was convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life in prison. The case is

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

Commission's Findings:   NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Patterson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Patterson was born on November 18, 1952. He is 47 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Patterson 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. Patterson.
Mr. Patterson 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. Patterson reported that he has made campaign expenditures totaling approximately $20.
Mr. Patterson testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Patter son 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. Patterson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Patterson described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

July 28     Federal Practice in District Court;

August 24     Proposed New S.C. Rules of Evidence;

October 13-15     U.S.A.F. Annual Survey of the Law;

December 7       Mastering S.C. Rules of Evidence;
1996   August 19-23     Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course;

November 11     Ethics Seminar;
1997   September 21     Annual National Guard Conference;

September 26     S.C. Tort Law Update;

October 10-12     U.S.A.F. Annual Survey of the Law;
1998   May 6         Fair Debt Collection Practices Act;

October 9-11     U.S.A.F Annual Survey of the Law;
1999   September 17-19     International Humanitarian Law;

November 19     Criminal Practice;
2000   January 8       Practicing Ethically in the 21st Century;

February 25       Tips from the Bench."
Mr. Patterson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Office of Attorney General, Discovery in Administrative Proceedings;
(b)   Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act;
(c)   U.S.A.F. CLE, Annual Survey of the Law, Denver, CO, Deployment;
(d)   U.S.A.F. CLE, Annual Survey of the Law, Denver, CO, Domestic Violence and Military;
(e)   Lecturer at A.N.G. Commander School, Knoxville, TN;
(f)   Solicitors' Association, Drug Forfeiture Act, Myrtle Beach, SC."
Mr. Patterson reported that he has published the following:
"Co-author, Civil Forfeiture Manual (South Carolina Attorney General, 1984). "
He further provided that he has published materials for the lectures mentioned above.

(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Patterson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Patterson did not

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Patterson reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."

(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Patterson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Patterson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Patterson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979.
Mr. Patterson described his legal experience as the following:
"Upon completion of law school and admission to the South Carolina Bar, I began practicing law with the South Carolina Attorney General's Office. I was involved in a number of areas of the law including workers' compensation, tort claims, condemnation actions, construction law claims, enforcement actions for State agencies, drug forfeiture actions, tender offer actions, licensing board hearings, and writing legal opinions.
In connection with my workers' compensation work, I represented the State Workers' Compensation Fund in all compensation cases involving the Fund which arose in one of the seven South Carolina Industrial Commission administrative districts. I also handled tort claims against the State and State employees which, at the time, were jury matters. The majority of my courtroom work was in connection with handling tort cases and condemnation cases.
Another significant aspect of my work with the Office concerned construction law. I was involved in contract drafting, contract administration, arbitration, and litigation.
A major responsibility of attorneys in the Attorney General's Office was representation of State agencies. Representation included defending agencies against suits and prosecuting enforcement actions for licensing agencies and rendering opinions. In connection with

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

(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Mr. Grady L. "Leck" Patterson, III, to be a qualified and highly regarded judicial candidate. The committee wholeheartedly approves of his candidacy for a circuit court judgeship."
Mr. Patterson is married to Sarah Jordan Patterson. He three children: Grady L. Patterson, IV (age 18); Jonathan D. Patterson (age 15); Sarah M. Patterson (age 11).
Mr. Patterson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar (Chairman of the Military Law Section, 1990-1991; Member of the House of Delegates for Military Law Section, 1991-1992; Member of the House of Delegates for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, 1992-1998; Committee on Continuing Education);
(b)   Richland County Bar Association (Clerk of Court Committee);
(c)   American Bar Association (Section on Litigation)."
Mr. Patterson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

The following persons were nominated:

Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Judge Ralph King "Tripp" Anderson, III,

G. Thomas Cooper, Jr.

Grady L. "Leck" Patterson, III

Circuit Court At-Large Seat 3

Lisa G. Collins

Edward W. "Ned" Miller

Clifton Newman

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rep. F. G. Delleney, Jr.       /s/ Sen. Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Sen. Edward E. Saleeby     /s/ Sen. Thomas L. Moore
/s/ Rep. Wm. Douglas Smith     /s/ Rep. Ralph W. Canty
/s/ Harry M. Lightsey, Jr.       /s/ Judge Curtis G. Shaw
/s/ Richard S. Fisher           /s/ Amy Johnson McLester

Note: Harry M. Lightsey, Jr. did not participate in the Commission's investigation, public hearing, deliberations, or voting regarding candidates for Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3.

On motion of Senator Moore, ordered printed in the Journal.

The following Bill was read the third time and having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and enrolled for Ratification:

H. 4271 (Word version) -- Rep. Cato: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-31-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RENTAL OF PRIVATE PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES, RENTAL RATES, AND PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED CHARGES, SO AS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO ELIMINATE THE PROHIBITION UPON A RENTAL COMPANY OF CHARGING AN ADDITIONAL FEE AS A CONDITION OF RENTING, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FUEL SURCHARGES, TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE MEANS OF AVOIDING AIRPORT SURCHARGES MUST BE DISCLOSED CLEARLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY IN ALL ADVERTISEMENTS OF A RENTAL RATE TO WHICH AIRPORT SURCHARGES MAY APPLY, AND TO PROVIDE THAT ONLY AIRPORT FEES THAT ARE REMITTED TO THE AIRPORT MANAGEMENT ARE PERMITTED TO BE SEPARATELY STATED AND COLLECTED.

By prior motion of Senator LAND, with unanimous consent

At 11:11 A.M., on motion of Senator SETZLER, the Senate adjourned to meet next Monday, May 8, 2000, at 11:00 A.M.

This web page was last updated on Friday, June 26, 2009 at 9:38 A.M.