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 COURSON.

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 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 four 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

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 Advisory 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 Advisory Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees are composed of people from a broad range of experience (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for varied organizations) and diverse racial and gender backgrounds. The Citizens Advisory Committees 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 to the Commission 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. 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

(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 seriously, as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's

This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court, and the Administrative Law Judge Division.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Allen meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Mr. Allen was born on November 9, 1956. He is 42 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Allen provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Allen.

Mr. Allen demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Allen reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Mr. Allen 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. Allen 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. Allen to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Allen reported that during the past five years he has taken CLE courses conducted by local practitioners as well as programs given by national figures, such as Terry MacCarthy (Cross Examination) and Thomas Mouet and Dominic Gianna (Secrets of Persuasion). He has also taken courses in arbitration and mediation training and courses relative to evidence and other matters relating to his practice.

Mr. Allen reported that he has lectured at seminars presented or sponsored by the National Business Institute and Lorman Education Services. These seminars generally concerned the obtaining and collecting of judgments. In 1992, he participated in a seminar on "The Legal Issues of Problem Collections in South Carolina." His lecture was in the area of Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and bankruptcy considerations regarding the collection of judgments. In 1993, he participated in a seminar on "Collecting Judgments in South Carolina." His lecture was in the area of the discovery of assets, bankruptcy effects on collection, and ethical considerations. In 1996 and 1997, he participated in a seminar on "Collection Law in South Carolina." His lecture was in the areas of obtaining a judgment, including pre-suit considerations, and the effect of bankruptcy on the collection process.

Mr. Allen reported that his published works are portions of the published seminar materials for the above-referenced seminars:
(a)   "The Legal Issues of Problem Collections in South Carolina," published by the National Business Institute, Inc., copyright 1992;
Mr. Allen prepared the portion of the materials covering Other Effects of Bankruptcy on Collection of Debts and Ethical Considerations;
(b)   "Collecting Judgments in South Carolina," published by the National Business Institute, Inc., copyright 1993;
Mr. Allen prepared that portion of the materials covering Formal Discovery;
(c)   "Collection Law in South Carolina," published by Lorman Education Services (1997);
Mr. Allen prepared the portion of materials covering Obtaining a Judgment and Effect of Bankruptcy on the Collection Process.

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Allen did not reveal any evidence of founded complaints or grievances made against him. The Commission's investigation also did not reveal any evidence of criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Allen did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Allen has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Allen was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Allen reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Allen appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Allen appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Mr. Allen was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Allen reported that he has been engaged in the private practice of law with Williams & Henry, P.A., in Greenville, South Carolina. His practice has principally involved collection and contract matters. He has handled claims involving unsecured debt, secured debt, the recovery of collateral, and enforcement of liens. He has brought suit on such matters as accounts, contracts, bonds, and mechanics liens. He has appeared and represented creditors and, on occasion, as the Trustee in Bankruptcy Court. He reported that he might have handled one or two personal injury claims five or more years ago. Prior to 1994, he provided assistance (principally by way of research) to an attorney with his firm on personal injury claims. Mr. Allen has also been involved in real estate transactions, including performing title work, real estate closings, and reviewing and drafting contracts.

Mr. Allen reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

Mr. Allen reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       100%

The Commission asked Mr. Allen specifically about his experience with criminal matters. In response, Mr. Allen noted that his academic record would indicate his diligence and ability to learn. The Commission is not concerned with his lack of experience in this area.

Mr. Allen reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       One case has gone to a jury;
(b)   Non-jury:   75-80% of his practice is non-jury;

5% or less goes to bench trial.

Mr. Allen provided that he most often served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Mr. Allen's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Syro Steel Company v. Eagle Construction Co., Inc., 319 S.C. 180, 460 S.E.2d 371 (1995). This case involved a bond claim under the South Carolina "little Miller Act". The case was significant in that the Court held that the supplier is not required to deliver the materials to the project site in order to recover on the payment bond;
(b)   PH Associates v. Sam Wyche Sports World, Inc., et al., Judgment Roll 93-3936, Greenville County. I was involved in supplemental proceedings against individual judgment defendants. The case is significant in that the Court denied an exemption claimed by the individual defendants in their IRA accounts, and held that the judgment creditor could reach those accounts in supplemental proceedings;
(c)   Sullivan Co., Inc. v. New Swirl, Inc., C.A. 90-CP-23-769. This case involved an action for collection of insurance premiums advanced by Sullivan Co., Inc. for the benefit of the defendant. I worked on this case with Ray R. Williams, Jr., however, I argued the motion for summary judgment before the trial court. The case was significant in that the trial Court held that the plaintiff insurance broker had no duty to obtain insurance at the lowest possible rate for the defendant, and granted summary judgment in the matter. The trial Court's decision was affirmed on appeal (Sullivan Co., Inc. v. New Swirl, Inc., 313 S.C. 34, 437 S.E.2d 30 (1993)), however, I did not argue the appeal, although I assisted Ray Williams on the appeal;

The following is Mr. Allen's list of civil appeals that he has personally handled:
(a)   Syro Steel Company v. Eagle Construction Co., Inc., 460 S.E.2d 371, 319 S.C. 180 (1995);
(b)   Span-America v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 296 S.C. 175, 371 S.E.2d 2 (S.C. App. 1988);
(c)   First Union National Bank v. Samuel T. Lancaster, Op. No. 93-UP-325 (S.C. App. 1993).

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Allen's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Allen to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria.

Mr. Allen is married to Marika G. Allen. He has two children: Marika G. Bartlett, stepdaughter (housewife, 26); Trey H. Allen (age 5).

Mr. Allen reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Greenville County Bar Association.

Mr. Allen provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Phi Beta Kappa (Member);
(b)   Pi Mu Epsilon (Honorary Mathematics Fraternity), (Member);
(c)   Order of Wig and Robe (Member);
(d)   Order of the Coif (Member).

Mr. Allen stated, "I was one of seven children and my parents were unable to pay for my college education. I attended Presbyterian College through the use of scholarship money and need-based grants. When I transferred to USC, I worked part-time to defray the cost of tuition and books. Fortunately, I was able to live at home to avoid the higher cost of campus living. Accordingly, I was not involved in many campus activities. The nature of my practice is such that most actions are filed on the non-jury docket. Many of these actions are disposed of prior to trial by default judgment, settlement or bankruptcy. Through use of discovery, in many collection actions I am also able to obtain summary judgment prior to trial. Accordingly, few of these actions reach trial.

In response to Question 19(b) [question concerning most significant litigated matters] above, I am also attaching for your review a copy of a Memorandum of Law which I prepared which briefed the issue before the Court. In that case I argued for a rejection of the Bankruptcy Court's analysis In re Sopkin, 57 B.R. 43 (Bkrtcy. D.S.C. 1985). The Court adopted the argument and disallowed the claim for exemption."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Brown meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.

Judge Brown was born on June 2, 1940. He is 58 years old and a resident of Gaffney, South Carolina. Judge Brown provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1967.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Brown.

The Commission waived those questions regarding ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal because Judge Brown demonstrated the appropriate understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct in his previous screening in January 1998.

Judge Brown reported that he has made no campaign expenditures.

Judge Brown 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 pending the outcome of screening; or
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Brown testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The practice and procedure questions were waived for Judge Brown because he met expectations on practice and procedure questions given to him during a previous screening within the past year.     Judge Brown described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as meeting or exceeding annual mandatory CLE/ethics seminar hours. In most years, he attended at least one seminar relating to county/municipal or electric cooperative law. He reported that he had a balance of hours, including a cross-section of general law, including Family law.

Judge Brown reported that he has not been a speaker or lecturer at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Judge Brown reported that he has published the following books or articles:
(a)   18 S.C.L.R. 513, South Carolina Law Review;
(b)   19 S.C.L.R. 116, South Carolina Law Review;
(c)   19 S.C.L.R. 681, South Carolina Law Review (only contributed to this Article together with other fellow students).

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Brown did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Brown did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Brown has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Brown was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:

Judge Brown reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Brown appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Brown appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Judge Brown was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967 and United States Patent office in 1969.

Since his graduation from law school, Judge Brown reported that he worked in the United States Patent Office in Washington, D.C., from July 1967 to July 1968 and was employed as a Patent Examiner. There, he completed basic Patent Office Academy courses. From July 1968 to August 1969, Judge Brown worked in the Patent Department of

Judge Brown reported that in recent years, he has limited his involvement in criminal cases and has devoted most of his time to civil matters, both from a plaintiff's and a defendant's standpoint. His corporate work has increased, which he believes is due to an increase in the complexity of issues experienced by the county and other corporate clients. The foregoing percentages are close approximations and are always subject to fluctuations from year to year.

Judge Brown reported that on May 6, 1998, he was elected as a Family Court Judge, Seat 3, Seventh Judicial Circuit. The Family Court has jurisdiction over juvenile and family matters.

Judge Brown reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:     0
(b)   State:       5-10 times or more per year
(c)   Other:       average one or more times per week in Family,

Probate, Magistrate, and City Courts

Judge Brown reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       approximately 75%, including probate, real estate,

corporate, and tort
(b)   Criminal:     approximately 3% or less
(c)   Domestic:   approximately 22%

Judge Brown reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       10%
(b)   Non-jury:   90%

Judge Brown reported that he most often served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Judge Brown's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Davis v. United Cities Gas Company (88-CP-11-159). Defended Gas Company against landowners who claimed company was negligent in causing gas hot water heater explosion and fire damages to their residences. The case resulted in a jury verdict for the Defendant and was difficult because of the obvious sympathy for the landowners' losses and because of technical considerations required in defending the company;
(b)   Gaffney Properties as an affiliate of Boyd Management v. Lee S. Harmon, Cherokee County Assessor (Nov. 1995). This case involved an appeal from the local Tax Appeal Board to the Administrative Law Judge and was an attack on methods the County used in appraising and assessing subsidized multiple family housing property. This case is significant because if the Petitioner had prevailed, county tax revenues would have been materially reduced. The issues raised also had statewide implications;

The following are five civil appeals Judge Brown has personally handled:
(a)   Galloway v. Galloway, 80-DR-11-512 (1981) Rule 23 opinion (Domestic);
(b)   Hamrick v. Summey, 282 S.C. 424, 320 S.E.2d 703 (1984)(Real estate and auctioneer issues);
(c)   Powell v. Parris, 95-CP-11-200, Court of Appeals (Estate issues);
(d)   Powell v. Parris, 97-CP-11-394, Court of Appeals (Estate issues) (Initial Brief on behalf of Respondent Powell has been submitted and awaiting Record on Appeal for Final Brief);
(e)   Broad River Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Hyatt, 95-CP-11-172, (Right-of-way issues)(Initial Brief for Respondent, BREC and Initial Brief on Cross-Appeal have been filed; presently awaiting Record on Appeal for Final Briefs).

Judge Brown reported that the only other appeals he has been involved with before the Supreme Court are criminal defense appeals listed as follows:
(a)   State v. Wheeler & Erwin, 259 S.C. 571, 193 S.E.2d 515 (1972);
(b)   State v. James Hoyle Hart, Jr., 85-GS-11-08, (1985) Rule 23 opinion.

Judge Brown reported that he was the Recorder for the City of Gaffney from approximately 1972 to 1974, for jury and non-jury trials of civil and criminal matters within the City's jurisdiction.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Brown's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Brown to meet and exceed the qualifications as set out by the evaluative criteria. The Committee further stated that their courtroom observations revealed that Judge Brown has proved to be a most capable jurist and is respected by attorneys, court personnel, and others who have worked with him.

Judge Brown is married to Charlotte P. Brown. He has two children: Wesley L. Brown, Jr. (Pharmacist, age 35); Robert M. Brown (Architect, age 32). Judge Brown also has three grandchildren ages 1 year, 3 years, and 6 years.

Judge Brown reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   Cherokee County Bar Association (President 1973);
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   American Bar Association.

Judge Brown provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Gaffney Kiwanis Club (Past President).

Judge Brown provided, "I have been involved as attorney for Cherokee County or Broad River Electric Cooperative, Inc. in at least four (4) major non-judicial matters which I consider to be significant:
(a)   Sale of County-owned hospital to National Medical Enterprises, Inc.;
(b)   Development by the Coop of Cherokee Falls Hydro-Electric facility on Broad River;
(c)   Development and renovation of old county-owned hospital building into an office and geriatrics facility known as Peachtree Centre (In association with Bond Counsel);
(d)   County participation in "fee in lieu" agreements in the development of Carolina Factory Shops Outlet Park on I-85. (In association with Bond Counsel).

All of the foregoing projects were complicated and involved unique issues. All required extensive time to complete."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Carpenter meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Mr. Carpenter was born on January 31, 1959. He is 39 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Carpenter 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. Carpenter.

Mr. Carpenter 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. Carpenter reported that he has made no campaign expenditures.

Mr. Carpenter testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to the 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. Carpenter 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. Carpenter to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Carpenter reported that during the past five years, his CLEs have been primarily related to Labor and Employment Law and Ethics.

Mr. Carpenter reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Mr. Carpenter reported that he has published the following book and/or articles:

"An Overview of the ADA Regulations," Employment and Labor Law Update, Newsletter: Employment and Labor Section, South Carolina Bar, Summer, 1991;

"Regulation of Religious Schools," Journal of Law and Education, Apr. 1985;

"Curiosity Kills the Company," Career Guide, Greenville Chamber of Commerce, 1994-1995;

"A Theory of Limited Judicial Review," paper presented to the Honorable Robert H. Bork, USC Law School, 1983.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Carpenter did not reveal any evidence of founded complaints or grievances. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Carpenter did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Carpenter has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Carpenter 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. Carpenter reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Carpenter appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Carpenter appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

Mr. Carpenter was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985 and the North Carolina Bar in 1986.

Since his graduation from law school in 1984, Mr. Carpenter reported that he first began working as a law clerk to Terrence W. Boyle, United States District Judge, E.D.N.C., who had just gone on the bench. He worked for Judge Boyle until the end of August 1985. He researched federal and state law and drafted opinions and orders. One month while he was a law clerk, he was invited to sit with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In October 1985, he began work in the United States Attorney's office in Raleigh, NC. Mr. Carpenter worked in the civil division, representing federal officers and agencies in civil litigation in the United States District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and in the United States Bankruptcy Court. He stayed there until the end of 1988. In January 1989, Mr. Carpenter began work in the law firm of Thompson, Mann & Hutson in Greenville, South Carolina. He represented employers in state and federal court, in cases usually connected to the employment relationship. Because of his litigation experience, the firm incorporated him into much of their litigation practice, including their more general litigation cases. In June 1994, he left the firm, which was then Thompson & Hutson, and started his own firm. Currently, he has one full-time associate and another attorney who does contract work on a regular, part-time basis. His work has continued to focus on employment law and business litigation, but he has also litigated in the Probate Court, and handled other general litigation matters.

Mr. Carpenter further provided that his criminal experience included United States Criminal Justice training in regular and advanced courses, as well as his participation in the United States Attorney's Office policy of "cross-departmental training;" civil attorneys received exposure to criminal work and vice versa. He has significant experience with crimes connected to forfeitures.

Mr. Carpenter reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:     3-5 times a year
(b)   State:       5-10 times a year
(c)   Other:       Probate Court approximately 1-2 times a year

Mr. Carpenter reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       100%

Because Mr. Carpenter provided that his current practice is 100% civil, the Commission requested a letter from him regarding any previous criminal experience. Mr. Carpenter provided in this letter that he obtained valuable criminal experience as a law clerk to a United States District Judge. He assisted the judge with numerous criminal trials. Mr. Carpenter also attended the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Trial Advocacy School and the Advanced Criminal Trial Advocacy School. Mr. Carpenter provided he prosecuted misdemeanor cases for the United States. In addition, in private practice, Mr. Carpenter has represented criminal defendants charged with felonies, drug offenses, bad check offenses, and misdemeanors. Finally, Mr. Carpenter represented the United States in civil matters which are closely related to the criminal justice system, such as the foreclosure of assets which were the fruits of crimes involving illegal drugs.

Mr. Carpenter reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       40%
(b)   Non-jury:   60% Most of them settle.

Mr. Carpenter reported that he most often served as sole or chief counsel in these matters.

The following is Mr. Carpenter's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, 316 S.C. 43, 446 S.E.2d 440 (1994) (on brief). This case is one of the most frequently cited cases in recent South Carolina jurisprudence. It involved an employee's action for wrongful discharge, and for failure to pay post termination sales commissions. It is frequently cited for both procedural and substantive issues;
(b)   Haddock v. Hardee, 1989 WL 27543 (4th Circuit) (sole counsel trial and appeal). This case involved the application of a statute governing the wrongful cutting of timber. The federal creditor with a lien on the timber sought to use the statute to recover against a third party who cut the timber and sold it without remitting the proceeds to the federal lien holder;
(c)   Masters v. Daniel International Corporation, 87-1290-C, with opinions reported at 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12434 (July 28, 1992) (D. Kansas) and 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20489 (Dec. 3, 1992) (D. Kansas). This case involved a "whistleblower" at a nuclear power plant. It was

The following are five civil appeals that Mr. Carpenter has handled personally:
(a)   Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, 316 S.C. 43, 446 S.E.2d 440 (1994) (on brief);
(b)   Masters v. Daniel International Corporation, No. 89-1701 United States Supreme Court, On petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. (on Response to Petition);
(c)   Wilson v. Milliken & Company, No. 93-1285 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 31912 (4th Circuit) (December 8, 1993) (brief and argument);
(d)   Smith v. Tandem Computers, Inc., No. 90-2745 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 24781 (4th Circuit) (October 18, 1991) (on brief);
(e)   Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland v. Louis Roussel, Jr., et al., No. 91-7352 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, (on brief).

While serving as an Assistant United States Attorney, Mr. Carpenter reported he handled several other appeals to the Fourth Circuit for which he does not have case names, opinions, or briefs.

Mr. Carpenter provided that his judicial experience consists of a judicial clerkship for a U.S. District Judge.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Carpenter's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Carpenter qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria.

Mr. Carpenter is married to Mary Ann Benton Carpenter. He has two children: Garrison Benton Carpenter (age 8); Gordon Ritchardson Carpenter (age 5).

Mr. Carpenter reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Labor & Employment Law Section;
(c)   North Carolina Bar;
(d)   Christian Legal Society.

Mr. Carpenter provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Miracle Hill Ministries, Inc. (Board Member);
(b)   Presbyterian Church in America (Elder);
(c)   Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (Former Elder).

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Connor meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Connor was born on January 23, 1950. She is 48 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Connor provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Connor.

Judge Connor demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,

Judge Connor reported that she has made no campaign expenditures.

Judge Connor 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 pending the outcome of screening; or
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Connor 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 Connor to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Connor described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Women Lawyers Association Seminar, 7.5 hours (4/18/97);
(b)   Torts and Insurance Practices/ Trial and Appellate Advocacy Law, 3.0 hours (6/20/97);
(c)   Judicial Conference, 8.0 hours (8/21/97);
(d)   Eleventh Annual Criminal Law Update, 6.25 hours (1/26/96);
(e)   Seminar for New Appellate Court Judges, 15.50 hours (5/1/96);
(f)   Judicial Conference, 8.25 hours (8/22/96);
(g)   Mid-Year Meeting: 10th Annual Criminal Law Update, 6.0 hours (1/13/95);
(h)   Judicial Conference, 8.0 hours (8/24/95);
(i)     Train and Trainers Workshop: Gender Fairness in Judicial, 15.16 hours (9/6/95);
(j)     S.C. Tort Law Update: A Circuit Court Bench/Bar Seminar, 6.0 hours (9/29/95);
(k)   9th Annual Criminal Law Update, 6.50 hours (1/21/94);
(l)     Judicial Writing, 26.33 hours (7/24/94);
(m)   Judicial Conference, 8.50 hours (8/25/94);
(n)   Judicial Conference, 8.50 hours (8/26/93).

Judge Connor reported that she has been a speaker or lecturer at the following bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs:

Judge Connor reported that she has not published any books or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Connor did not reveal any evidence of criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of any founded complaints or grievances made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Connor did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Connor has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Connor 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:

As a sitting Judge, Judge Connor does not have a Martindale-Hubbell rating.

(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Connor appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Connor appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Judge Connor was admitted to the Texas Bar in November 1976, and was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in May 1977.

Since her graduation from law school, Judge Connor reported that she was an Assistant to the South Carolina Attorney General from 1976 to 1977. She was Assistant Public Defender for Richland County from 1977 to 1980 and was Deputy Public Defender for Richland County

Judge Connor's identified the following five decisions or opinions as her most significant:
(a)   State v. McAteer, Op. No. 2795 (S.C. Ct. App. Filed, Feb. 17, 1988)(Davis Adv. Sh. No. 7 at 61)(Connor, J., dissenting), reh'g granted en banc, (May 26, 1998). (Dissented in the case. The Court has since voted to hear it en banc in September.);
(b)   Greystone Catering Co. Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 326 S.C. 551, 486 S.E.2d 7 (Ct. App. 1997);
(c)   McKissick v. J.F. Cleckley & Co., 325 S.C. 327, 479 S.E.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1996);
(d)   Gattison v. S.C. State College, 318 S.C. 148, 456 S.E.2d 414 (Ct. App. 1995), cert. denied, (Jan. 16, 1996);
(e)   Daisy Outdoor Adver. Co., Inc. v. Abbott, 317 S.C. 14, 451 S.E.2d 394 (Ct. App. 1994) (Connor, J., dissenting); rev'd, 322 S.C. 489, 473 S.E.2d 47 (1996). (Judge Connor dissented in the case, and the Supreme Court agreed with her position).

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Connor's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Connor to be a well-qualified and highly-respected judge. The Committee further stated that it wholeheartedly approves of Judge Connor's re-election to the Court of Appeals. The Commission found Judge Connor to be an outstanding Jurist and to have done an extraordinary job on the Court of Appeals. The Commission further stated that Judge Connor is serving the state well and should be highly commended.

The Commission noted that Judge Connor was recently awarded an honorary doctorate of law from her alma mater, Converse College.

Judge Connor is married to Palmer Freeman, Jr. She has three children: Timothy Connor-Murphy (age 20); Wallace Connor Freeman (age 11); Daniel McGill Freeman (age 10).

Judge Connor reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   American Judicature Society;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   Texas Bar Association;
(d)   American Judges Association;
(e)   American Bar Association Juvenile & Family Law Committee of the National Conference of State Trial Judges;
(f)   South Carolina Association of Circuit Court Judges;
(g)   John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court;
(h)   Access to Justice Commission.

Judge Connor provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Community Advisory Board, The Nurturing Center;
(b)   Participant in the USC Judicial Internship Clinic for law students;
(c)   Formerly served on the Council on Child Abuse & Neglect;
(d)   Washington Street United Methodist Church;
Superintendent's Parents' Advisory Committee, Richland District II Schools.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Culbertson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Judge Culbertson was born on February 24, 1959. He is 39 years old and a resident of Georgetown, South Carolina. Judge Culbertson 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 Culbertson.

Judge Culbertson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,

Judge Culbertson reported that he has made no campaign expenditures.

Judge Culbertson 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 Culbertson 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 Culbertson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Culbertson reported that the only continuing legal or judicial education he has had during the past five years "has been that which is required by Rules 408 (for attorneys) and 504 (for Master-In-Equity) of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules." Judge Culbertson provided the following seminars that he has attended during that time period:
Course Name, Date, Sponsor, Hours:
Rules, Rules, Rules   , 03/20/98, SC Bar, 5.0
Ten Things You Need To Know, 02/13/98, SC Bar, 3.0
That Was The Year That Was, 01/03/97, SC Bar, 7.5
Practice Before Masters-In-Equity, 10/18/96, SC Bar, 6.5
Alternative Dispute Resolution, 07/19/96, SC Bar, 8.0
Ethics, Substance Abuse Charter and Mental Health, 12/08/95, Charleston, 6.5
Mastering New SC Rules of Evidence, 12/07/95, SC Bar, 6.0
Criminal Practice in South Carolina, 11/03/95, SC Bar, 7.25
1994-This Was The Year That Was, 12/02/94, SC Bar, 6.25
Professional Responsibility, 11/16/94, SC Bar & ALPS, 3.0
1993-This Was The Year That Was, 12/10/93, SC Bar, 6.5
Criminal Practice in South Carolina, 11/12/93, SC Bar, 6.5

Judge Culbertson reported that he has not taught any law-related courses or lectured.

Judge Culbertson reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Culbertson did not reveal any evidence of founded complaints or grievances. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Culbertson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Culbertson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Culbertson 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 Culbertson reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Culbertson reported that he has previously served as Chairman of the Georgetown Municipal Election Commission from 1994 to 1996. He was appointed to that position by the Georgetown City Council.

(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Culbertson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Culbertson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Judge Culbertson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

Since his graduation from law school, Judge Culbertson worked as an associate attorney in the firm of Schneider & O'Donnell, P.A., in Georgetown, South Carolina, from 1985 until 1987. This firm maintained a general practice of law. In 1988, he became a partner in the firm and in 1989, the firm changed its name to O'Donnell & Culbertson, P.A. In 1991, Judge Culbertson left the firm of O'Donnell & Culbertson, P.A. and opened his own office of general practice of

In addition to his practice of law as an attorney, Judge Culbertson served as Assistant Municipal Judge for the City of Georgetown from January 1985 until April 1996. As Assistant Municipal Judge, he presided over Traffic Court, signed arrest warrants, conducted bond hearings, and presided over preliminary hearings. Since April 1996, Judge Culbertson has served as Master-in-Equity for Georgetown County.

Judge Culbertson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   During the last five years, he has had five cases in federal court. Three cases settled prior to trial. One settled during trial. One is pending.
(b)   State:   Over the last five years, he has appeared as a lawyer in state General Sessions and Common Pleas Court an average of 10 times a year. He has appeared in state Family Court an average of 35 or 40 times a year. For the past two years, he has served as Master-in-Equity for Georgetown County, South Carolina, and presides over approximately 100 cases a year.
(c)   Other:   He appears as an attorney in magistrate's court approximately six or seven times a year.

Judge Culbertson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       25%
(b)   Criminal:     20%
(c)   Domestic:   30%

Judge Culbertson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       5%
(b)   Non-jury:   95%

Judge Culbertson provided that he served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Judge Culbertson's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Lewis G. Haselden, Jr. v. James A. Bove, Unpublished Opinion No. 98-UP-006, Filed 1/7/98 (Ct.App.1998) - Common Pleas case in which I represented the Plaintiff/Respondent in suit for collection of a

All of these cases are significant in that each is before a different tribunal (i.e., Common Pleas, General Sessions, Workers Compensation Commission, Family Court and South Carolina Court of Appeals). I was the sole attorney for my clients in each case. I know the procedures and law for each tribunal and I have been successful in all practices of law."

The following is Judge Culbertson's account of the civil appeal which he has personally handled:
"(a)   Lewis G. Haselden, Jr. v. James A. Bove, Unpublished Op. No. 98-UP-006, Filed 1/7/98 (Ct.App.1998) - Common Pleas case in which I represented the Plaintiff/Respondent in suit for collection of a debt arising under a promissory note. I also represented Plaintiff/Respondent on appeal. Directed verdict was granted in favor of Plaintiff/Respondent in the amount of $107,083.21. Lower Court's directed verdict was affirmed on appeal."

Judge Culbertson reported that the above is the only civil appeal he has personally handled, but he has handled several domestic appeals.

Judge Culbertson reported that he was an Assistant Municipal Judge for the City of Georgetown, S.C. He served from January 1985 to April 1996 and was appointed to this position by City Council. He presided over city traffic court and other criminal matters with penalties of not more than 30 days in jail and/or $500 fine. He also conducted bond hearings for General Sessions offenses, signed arrest warrants, and conducted preliminary hearings.

Judge Culbertson also reported that he has been the Master-in-Equity for Georgetown County since April 1996. He was appointed to this position by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. This position has the same jurisdiction as the Circuit Court non-jury civil matters, although he can only preside over matters referred to him by court order.

The following is Judge Culbertson's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Gene Boyle Brading v. County of Georgetown, ____ S.C. ____, 490 S.E.2d 4 (1997). Plaintiff/Appellant filed suit against the County of Georgetown seeking declaratory judgment that beach access property adjacent to her property had not been dedicated for public use and, further, that the county's construction of parking spaces in the access area would constitute a nuisance. Plaintiff also asked that the county be enjoined from constructing parking spaces in such access area. Sitting as special referee, I ruled that the access area had been dedicated for public use as a street and the county's construction of parking spaces in such access area was not a nuisance.

My order in this case was affirmed on appeal by the South Carolina Supreme Court;
(b)   Wachesaw Plantation, et al. v. Richard N. Mickel, et al. 96-CP-22-374. Foreclosure action in which I granted judgment in favor of the

The Defendants' bid would have satisfied the judgment, though Defendants did not comply with their bid prior to the close of bidding. On the thirtieth day after commencing of the sale, bidding was reopened and, five minutes prior to the close of bidding, a third party bid $1.00 more than the Defendants.

On the Defendants' motion for reconsideration, I set aside the third party's bid and allowed the Defendants to comply with their bid and keep their property. My ruling was that, in doing that which is equitable, the Defendants should not lose their property when they had bid a sufficient amount to satisfy the judgment against them but had been 'out bid' at the foreclosure sale by $1.00.

My order setting aside the third party's bid is currently on appeal;
(c)   Cynthia Nance v. Patricia T. Nance, 95-CP-22-323. Lawsuit by decedent's ex-wife (Plaintiff) against decedent's beneficiary under a life insurance policy. Under a prior decree from the family court, the decedent had been ordered to name the Plaintiff as beneficiary under a life insurance policy granted to the ex-wife during the divorce. The decedent never changed the beneficiary under the policy.

In this case, I ruled that the Plaintiff (ex-wife) was entitled to the life insurance benefits, as per the family court order, and ordered the decedent's estate to release the benefits to the Plaintiff;
(d)   Brandy Branch, Inc. v. Ophelia Blake Marshall, et al., 96-CP-22-333. Very complicated partition action which involved the partition in kind of 198.5 acres of property among more than 20 joint property owners;
(e)   Virginia Ogburn-Matthews v. Loblolly Partners (Ricefields Subdivision) and DHEC Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 95-CP-22-382. Case in which the Plaintiff challenged DHEC Office of Ocean and Coastal Management's (OCRM) issuance of a permit to Loblolly Partners for development of property, including the 'filling in' of areas alleged by Plaintiff to be wetlands. Plaintiff alleged OCRM's review procedures to be unconstitutional for violation of due process. The issue had never been previously addressed on appeal.

As special referee presiding over the case, I found the permitting procedures of OCRM constitutional. The case was reversed and remanded on other grounds."

The Commission believes that Judge Culbertson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found that "Judge Culbertson is qualified for the position of Circuit Court Judge in the State of South Carolina and recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."

Judge Culbertson is married to Renee Kinsey Culbertson. He has three children: Benjamin Hellams Culbertson, Jr. (age 9); Maxwell Kinsey Culbertson (age 8); Maggie English Culbertson (age 5).

Judge Culbertson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association, (November 1984-present);
(b)   Georgetown County Bar, (1985-present, Secretary 1985-1986, 1989-1990);
(c)   American Bar Association (1985-1992).

Judge Culbertson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
Georgetown County United Way Allocation Committee (1993-1994);
Citadel Alumni Association, (f/k/a Association of Citadel Men);
Duncan Memorial United Methodist Church
- Administrative Board (1987-1990)
- Ushering/Offering Committee (1994-1998)
- Long Range Planning Committee (1994)
- Lay Leader (1997-present);
Georgetown County Cotillion Club
- Executive Committee (1996-present);
Winyah Indigo Society
- Head Senior Steward (1994-1996).

Judge Culbertson provided "I am qualified for the seat of circuit court judge. I have held judicial seats since I started practicing law. I have experience as a judge in criminal cases (i.e., assistant municipal court judge) and as a judge in civil cases (i.e., Master-in-Equity). I have practiced and am knowledgeable in all areas of law."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Evans meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Mr. Evans was born on January 30, 1950. He is 48 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Evans provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Evans.

Mr. Evans 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. Evans reported that he has spent less than $10.00 on stamps, less than $10.00 on telephone calls, and $34.00 on copies.

Mr. Evans 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. Evans 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. Evans to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Evans reported that during the past five years he has timely completed all of his required continuing legal and ethical educational requirements. During the past five years, his areas of educational

Mr. Evans reported that he has lectured at several legal and judicial continuing education programs. Topics have included government tort liability, ethics, forfeitures, civil practice, and administrative law. He has spoken as a guest lecturer in graduate courses, at law enforcement training programs, and at programs for public officials and private citizens. Topics have included local government, law enforcement issues, mental health law, FOI law, and administrative law.

Mr. Evans reported that he has published the following books and/or articles:
(a)   Editor and Author, Vol. 21, S.C. Jurisprudence, Forfeitures, (1993);
(b)   Author, Vol. 8, No. 4, S.C. Lawyer, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Overview of South Carolina Law (Jan./Feb. 1997);
(c)   Editor and Author, Civil Drug Forfeiture Manual (1986) (Practice manual published by Attorney General's Office for prosecutors and trial judges);
(d)   Author of a variety of articles for several law enforcement and government law newsletters (published by the Attorney General's Office and includes a series related to law enforcement civil liability).

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Evans did not reveal any evidence of grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Evans did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Evans has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Evans was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Evans reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."

Mr. Evans reported that he has previously served as an Assistant Attorney General from 1974 to 1994. This was an appointed position pursuant to Section 1-7-30, S.C. Code (1986 rev.).
Mr. Evans reported that he has received the following awards:
(a)   Recipient of the Order of the Palmetto, (1997);

(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Evans appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Evans appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Mr. Evans was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Evans reported that from 1974 to 1994 he worked in the Office of Attorney General and from 1988 to 1994 was the Chief Deputy Attorney General. He managed the major civil division of the Office of Attorney General, managed civil attorneys and support staff, and managed all office civil litigation and state agency legal services. Mr. Evans' case responsibilities were in the areas of constitutional law, civil rights, tort claims, public records, public finance, ethics, administrative law, and forfeitures. Mr. Evans reported that he litigated cases in all South Carolina state courts, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the Federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court, federal bankruptcy courts, and several other federal and state trial and appellate courts. During earlier years, Mr. Evans represented regulatory agencies, prosecuted criminal and administrative cases, and handled criminal appeals. Mr. Evans also has had significant criminal experience early in his career at the Attorney General's Office. He has handled matters ranging from criminal acts by state employees to post-conviction relief cases.

Since 1994, Mr. Evans has served as Deputy General Counsel at the State Budget and Control Board. In that position, he is Chief of Staff for the Board's office of General Counsel and manages the General Counsel staff and operations, supervises the provision of legal services for several Board programs, which include the State's insurance programs, retirement programs, procurement program, construction program, telecommunications program, and public finance programs. Mr. Evans reported that he is the chief litigation attorney for

Mr. Evans reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:     5-10 per year
(b)   State:       20-30 per year
(c)   Other:       Administrative tribunals, 10-20 per year

Mr. Evans reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       75%
(b)   Criminal:     less than 5%
(c)   Domestic:   less than 1%

Mr. Evans reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       5%
(b)   Non-jury:   95%

Mr. Evans provided that in cases tried to a jury verdict, his role recently has been supervisory only, but that he has served as Chief Counsel or sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Mr. Evans' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Kennedy v S.C. Retirement Systems, Budget and Control Bd., (95CP36-268) pending on appeal: Chief counsel for the State at trial in a billion dollar class action lawsuit concerning payment of disputed benefits;
(b)   State v Hill, 314 S.C. 330, 444 S.E.2d 255 (1994): Chief counsel for State in action challenging trial court's authority, and the standards to release a criminal defendant from custody pending trial in a capital murder case;
(c)   Sharpe v S.C. Dept. of Mental Health, 292 S.C. 11, 354 S.E.2d 778 (Ct. App. 1987) cer. dis. 294 S.C.469, 366 S.E.2d 12 (1988); prior decision, 281 S.C. 242, 315 S.E.2d 112 (1984): Co-counsel at trial and on appeals for defendants in wrongful death malpractice action which established law concerning a doctor's duty to warn and resolving need for expert testimony to establish standard of care in a psychiatric malpractice action;

The following is Mr. Evans' list of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
(a)   McEachern v Black, 329 S.C. 642, 496 S.E.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1998);
(b)   Roberts v State, 318 S.C. 219, 456 S.E.2d 905 (1995);
(c)   Medlock v 1985 Ford Pick Up, 308 S.C. 68, 417 S.E.2d 68 (1992);
(d)   Myers v Real Property at 1518 Holmes Street, 306 S.C. 232, 417 S.E.2d 209 (1991);
(e)   Brady v Anders, 294 S.C. 342, 364 S.E.2d 467 (1988).

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Evans' temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

Based on its investigation, the Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Evans to be a well-qualified and highly-regarded judicial candidate.

Mr. Evans is married to Elise Carson Mullins Evans. He has two children: Sydney Ellis Evans (age 10); Carson McCants Evans (age 4).

Mr. Evans reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Richland County Bar Association.

Mr. Evans provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   St. Martin's in the Fields Episcopal Church (Member).

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Goodwin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Ms. Goodwin was born on December 14, 1944. She is 54 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Goodwin provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Goodwin.

Ms. Goodwin 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. Goodwin reported that her campaign expenditures have been in the form of postage.

Ms. Goodwin 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. Goodwin 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. Goodwin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Ms. Goodwin described her continuing judicial education during the past five years as follows:

1998:   The South Carolina Woman Advocate: Moving Into The Millennium (speaker);

1997:   Highlights of Bankruptcy Local Rule Amendments Circuit Court Mediation (taught 40 hour course for S.C. Bar);

1996:   Alternative Dispute Resolution Criminal Practice in S.C.--The Sixth Annual Update (Speaker); Bridge the Gap--Lawyers Trust Accounts (Speaker); SC Circuit Court Arbitrator Certification Training;

1995:   Numerous bankruptcy one-hour seminars
Taking Effective Depositions
Winter Bridge the Gap--Lawyers Trust Accounts (Speaker)
The Woman Advocate in South Carolina
Taught three 40-hour courses on Family and Circuit Court Mediation for the South Carolina Bar;

1994:   Bridge the Gap--Lawyers Trust Accounts (Speaker)
Bankruptcy one-hour seminars.

Ms. Goodwin reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
Instructor, Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties, Columbia College 1985;
Instructor, Business Law, University of South Carolina 1984;
Instructor, Business Law, Webster College 1987;
Adjunct Professor, Trial Advocacy, U.S.C. Law School 1989-1995;
Speaker, Bridge the Gap, 1994-1996;
Speaker, Second Annual Bench-Bar Conference on Criminal Trial Advocacy, 1983;
Speaker, Fourth Annual Bench-Bar Conference on Criminal Trial Advocacy, 1985;
Instructor, A Practice Guide to Courtroom Criminal Procedures, 1984;
Instructor, Trial Practice Institute, Department of Public Advocacy, Richmond, Kentucky 1985;
Instructor, Trial Advocacy Skills Training, S.C. Legal Services Assn. 1985;
Coordinator, Sentencing Options and Implications of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1986;
Coordinator, Nuts and Bolts of Juvenile Law, 1989;
Speaker, Strategic Planning for Small Firms and Solo Practitioners, 1991-1992;
Speaker, Ethics for Criminal Law Practitioners, 1992;
Faculty, SC Circuit Court Arbitrator Certification Training, 1996;
Taught two 40-hour courses for Circuit Court Mediators, 1995, 1997;

Ms. Goodwin reported that she has written the following books and/or articles:
South Carolina Criminal Defense, Thames, Goodwin and VonZharen, 1988.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Ms. Goodwin did not reveal any evidence of founded complaints or grievances. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Goodwin did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Goodwin has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Ms. Goodwin 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.

Ms. Goodwin was a party in In re the Matter of Goodwin which involved an appeal from an order holding Ms. Goodwin and other attorneys in contempt of court for disobeying an order to proceed with trial when they discovered that the client would be giving false testimony. The Supreme Court held the attorneys were in contempt of court; however, sanctions were not warranted.

(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Goodwin reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

(6)   Physical Health:

Ms. Goodwin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Ms. Goodwin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Ms. Goodwin was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.

Since her graduation from law school, Ms. Goodwin served as an Assistant/Deputy Public Defender from 1977 to 1983. Since August

Since 1991, Ms. Goodwin has worked part-time as an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Columbia prosecuting cases in jury trials one week per month. From 1988 to 1995, Ms. Goodwin taught trial advocacy at the U.S.C. Law School.

Ms. Goodwin reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:       Approximately 12 times per year
(b)   State:         Approximately 6 times per year
(c)   Other:         City/Magistrate: approximately 250 times per year;

Bankruptcy Court: approximately 15 times per year

Ms. Goodwin reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:         40%
(b)   Criminal:       20%
(c)   Domestic:     15%
(d)   Bankruptcy:   25%

Ms. Goodwin reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:         40% (excluding City Court Prosecutions)
(b)   Non-jury:     60%

Ms. Goodwin provided that she served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Ms. Goodwin's account of her most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
This is the only reported case in which a federal court intervened to stop an ongoing state court prosecution on the ground of double jeopardy. The State's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in June, 1996; I represented a co-defendant, Swain, at trial and on appeal.
Gilliam v. Foster, 61 F.3d 1070 (4th Cir. 1995)
Gilliam v. Foster, 63 F.3d 287 (4th Cir. 1995)
Foster v. Gilliam, 515 U.S. 1301, 116 S.Ct. 1 (1995)
Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)

The following is Ms. Goodwin's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   First American Bank and Trust v. R. Geoffrey Levy, Trustee for Gardner-Matthews Plantation Company, Hilton Head Hotel Company, Vacation Resorts Holdings, Inc., Vacation Resorts, Inc., and Hilton Head Holdings Corporation, etc. Record No. 88-2017, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal was granted by Order of the Court dated Dec. 6, 1989. The opinion is unpublished. I was counsel for appellee.
(b)   In Re: Patriot's Point Associates, Ltd., Debtor, R. Geoffrey Levy, Trustee v. Citizens and Southern Trust Company (S.C.), N.A., 902 F.2d 1566 (4th Cir. 1990).
(c)   James J. Knight v. Marilyn L. Knight, South Carolina Supreme Court, 1983, unpublished opinion, Domestic case, I represented respondent.
(d)   The Home Insurance Company v. Charles B. Bowers and Charles H. Emmons, Personal Representative of the Estate of Constance S. Emmons, 39 F.3d 1177 (Unpublished) (4th Cir. 1994) I was sole trial

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Goodwin's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee on Judicial Qualifications found Ms. Goodwin to be a qualified and highly-regarded judicial candidate. The Committee positively approved of her candidacy for a circuit court judgeship.

Ms. Goodwin is divorced and has three children: Brooks Womack Goodwin "Buddy" (Recreational therapist, age 28); Leslie Suzanne Goodwin Nelson (Recreational therapist, age 28); Michael Andrew Goodwin (Mortgage Loan Officer, age 27).

Ms. Goodwin reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association

Criminal Law Section Council (1984-1991)

Editor of Newsletter (1978-1980)

Chair (1988-1989)

Alternative Dispute Resolution Section Council (1995-1996);
(b)   Richland County Bar Association;
(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association;
(d)   South Carolina Bankruptcy Law Association.

Ms. Goodwin provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Shandon United Methodist Church;
(b)   Public Defender Corporation Board of Directors.

Ms. Goodwin provided that "[t]rial experience in prosecuting and defending criminal cases and representing plaintiffs and defendants in civil trials has given me a unique perspective on the judicial system at work. Six years service on the Grievance Commission has provided me with sincere appreciation for the ethical standards required of members of the legal profession."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commissions's investigation, Mr. Greeley meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.

Mr. Greeley was born on November 21, 1958. He is 40 years old and a resident of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Mr. Greeley 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 Mr. Greeley.

Mr. Greeley 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. Greeley reported that he has spent about $50.00 on this campaign in postage for mailing one letter to each member of the General Assembly informing them of his intent to seek this position.

Mr. Greeley testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to the 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. Greeley 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. Greeley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Greeley reported that his continuing legal education during the past five years involved attending the CLE's offered by the Bar in the areas of family law, criminal law, ethics, and litigation.

Mr. Greeley reported that he has not been a speaker or lecturer at any Bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Mr. Greeley reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Greeley did not reveal any evidence of founded complaints or grievances. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Greeley did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Greeley has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Greeley 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. Greeley reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Greeley appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Greeley appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Mr. Greeley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Greeley was hired as the first full-time assistant solicitor for the County of York, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit. He assisted in preparing matters for trial when he first arrived and until he passed the bar in November 1986. Once he became a member of the Bar, Mr. Greeley prosecuted both felonies and misdemeanors before juries. He assisted in the preparation of death

Mr. Greeley left the firm in August 1990 to open his own practice which he has maintained, except for a period of about 18 months when he was practicing with Bruce Poore of Rock Hill. Over the last eight years, Mr. Greeley's practice has evolved into a general practice with emphasis in trial work in both state and federal courts. He presently practices criminal defense, domestic law, and general civil law which includes personal injury and breaches of contract. His criminal defense practice has involved cases from DUIs to capital murder cases. He has tried before a jury all these types of cases. He has also been appointed as counsel in federal drug cases in Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Greeley's domestic practice has involved almost every type of family court matter with the exception of adoptions. He has tried divorce cases, defended DSS cases, prosecuted a case on behalf of DSS, represented young people in juvenile court, been appointed as a Guardian ad Litem, and represented Guardians. His civil practice has included Plaintiff's work in wrongful death and injury matters, as well as defense work in construction litigation and contract litigation.

Mr. Greeley reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:     periodic
(b)   State:       constant

Mr. Greeley reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       20%
(b)   Criminal:     50%
(c)   Domestic:   30%

Mr. Greeley reported the following percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years involving matters which went to a jury:
(a)   Jury:       60%
(b)   Non-jury:   40%

Mr. Greeley reported that he most often served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Mr. Greeley's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Holmes: This was the first capital case I was involved as lead counsel. I was appointed and Mr. Holmes was charged with the rape and murder of an 86-year-old retired teacher. The case involved DNA evidence as well as print evidence. We were able to have both of these alleged pieces of evidence suppressed by the trial court. The print evidence was suppressed based on the holding of the case cited below, In re Snyder. Yet, the defendant was still found guilty and sentenced to death by the trial jury. He has most recently been awarded a new trial on the basis of an incorrect instruction given to him by the trial court regarding his right to last argument;
(b)   In re Snyder: State v. John Doe: In this case I represented a real estate agent who was under investigation for the murder of a local teacher's assistant. During the investigation the State filed a motion to obtain body fluids from my client for the purpose of analysis. We opposed the motion and the lower court ruled in our favor. The State appealed and the Supreme Court overturned the ruling but did set out procedures and requirements for obtaining such samples. In re Snyder: State v. John Doe, 417 S.E.2d 572, 308 S.C. 192;
(c)   Greeley v. County of York: Following the trial of the Bobby Holmes matter mentioned above, the trial court ordered the County to pay a certain amount of attorneys fees and costs to me. The County appealed the order. Although it may be of little significance now, at the time it was a case that set precedent for payment of appointment counsel prior to the effect of the legislation dealing with the South Carolina Indigent Defense Act. Greeley v. County of York, 453 S.E.2d 894, 316 S.C. 281;
(d)   Cousar v. New London Engineering: This was a civil matter in which I represented a third-party defendant who had been summoned into the case by the defendant prior to any verdict being rendered against the defendant in the matter. The defendant made a motion to amend its answer and interplead the third-party defendant and we opposed the motion. Judge Ervin ruled in our favor and did not allow the defendant to amend the answer. The appeal followed. Although my client did not participate directly in the appeal due to the costs necessary, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion which is one of the first to interpret the contribution of tortfeasors statute, upholding

I informed the court of the problem but also argued confinement for him at this stage would do much more harm than good. I therefore made a motion for DSS to take custody of him due to abandonment by his father. The motion was granted. From that point the case became very significant to me personally for it contained all the possible pitfalls for young people with which the Family Court can be confronted, such as no home for the child, possible confinement, possibly being entered into the sexual offenders registry at the age of 11, and possible treatment if needed. I was subsequently also appointed as his Guardian and am still working on the matter."

Mr. Greeley reported the following civil appeal which he has handled personally:
Clinton v. The Sheriff of York County (Not reported) Court of Appeals upheld the grant of summary judgment for the trial court.

Mr. Greeley reported that he was appointed Assistant Solicitor for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit from 1986 to 1988.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Greeley's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found that Mr. Greeley has a good reputation in the community and is well-respected by attorneys and others in the area. The Committee also found that he was somewhat lacking in experience with the Family Court but from

Mr. Greeley provided that his Family Court experience could be broken down as follows:
(a)   Divorce/Equitable Distribution/Custody:   Approximately 40%
(b)   DSS/Protective Services matters:         Approximately 40%
(c)   Juvenile Justice matters:                 Approximately 20%
(d)   Adoption:                           0% except to interview

parents who intended to give up their parental rights.

The Commission did not express any concerns regarding Mr. Greeley's Family Court experience.

Mr. Greeley is married to Sabella Mitchell Greeley. He has two children: Paul Mitchell Greeley (age 12); Anna Fuller Greeley (age 5).

Mr. Greeley reported that he is a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   York County Bar Association.

Mr. Greeley provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   York County Public Defender Board (Member and Chairman);
(b)   Board of Directors of the Rock Hill Y.M.C.A (Former Member and Vice-President);
(c)   Episcopal Church of Our Savior (Former member and Senior Warden, Vestry);
(d)   Episcopal Church of Our Savior (Acolyte Master);
(e)   Head Football Coach

Bulldogs Gra-Y Football Team (ages 11-12).

Mr. Greeley provided, "I believe that the Family Court is the court which most affects the lives of the people in our community. It centers around the most emotional and important issues of most people. It is also the forum where the most direct contact is made with young people who seem to have lost direction. It affects the lives and futures of all these people. And the most significant aspect of this is that there is no jury. The presiding judge in each matter must be most aware of the power and significance s/he has.

I believe that I have, as well as any other person, the aspects needed to carry out the important work of the Court. Throughout my life I have always greatly enjoyed people in general. I enjoy listening to people and trying to help people. This is the forum where this is done. I believe I have the temperament, sense of fairness, and strength,

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Howard meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.

Judge Howard was born on January 19, 1948. He is 50 years old and a resident of Johns Island, South Carolina. Judge Howard provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Howard.

Judge Howard 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 Howard reported that he has made no campaign expenditures.

Judge Howard 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 Howard 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 Howard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Howard reported that his continuing legal or judicial education during the last five years has included regular attendance at JCLE seminars. He has attended lectures at various seminars and judicial conferences, including the South Carolina Judicial Conference, the Alabama Judicial Conference, the California Judicial Conference, the Colorado Judicial Conference, the Tennessee Annual Judicial Conference, and the Oregon Judicial Conference.

Judge Howard reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
CLE- Ethical Considerations in Civil Cases;
CLE-Effect of Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete (Civil Baston);
SCDAA CLE-Mediation;
SCDAA CLE-Civil Procedure Update;
Judicial Conference JCLE-Civil Law Update, Common Trial Errors;
New Judge's School-How to Try a Civil Case, Common Trial Errors,

Civil "Junkyard;"
CLE-Criminal Law Developments-A View from the Bench;
CLE-Effect of Daubert v. Merrill Dow (Expert Testimony);
Law School for Non-Lawyers (4 years)-Overview of the Court System;
JCLE-Family Court Judges, Contempt Powers;
JCLE-Family Court Judges Annual Conference-How to Avoid

Reversal;
JCLE-Circuit Court Annual Conference-How to Avoid a Reversal;
CLE-Common Trial Mistakes-A View From the Bench;
ABA Seminar-Toxic Tort Litigation Section-Handling Press Issues;
ABA Seminar-First Amendment Section-First Amendment Issues in

Notorious Cases;
ABA Seminar-Litigation Section-Handling High Profile Cases;
California Annual Judicial Conference-Handling High Profile Cases;
Alabama Annual Judicial Conference-Cameras in the Courtroom;
Colorado Annual Judicial Conference-Handling High Profile Cases;
Tennessee Annual Judicial Conference-Cameras in the Courtroom;
Oregon Administrative Judicial Conference-Administrative Issues in

High Profile Cases;
Guest Lecture-Dickinson College and Law School-Handling Notorious Cases;
Labor Law for Non-Lawyers-Southern University;
CLE-Recent Workers Compensation Cases;

Association;
CLE-Open Proceedings: A Balancing Act.

Judge Howard reported that he has published the following books and/or articles:
(a)   S.C. Law Review Article-Televised Trials: Can the Government Market Electronic Access, 49 S.C. L. Rev. 55 (1997);
(b)   Cameras in the Courtroom, Quill, Oct. 1996 at 22.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Howard did not reveal any evidence of grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Howard did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Howard has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Howard 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 Howard reported he served as a Captain in the USAR from September to December 1973. He received an Honorable Discharge.

Judge Howard reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was unknown.

Judge Howard provided that he was appointed civil attorney for the Town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, and served in this position from October 1981 to October 1984.

(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Howard appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Howard appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Judge Howard was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

Since his graduation from law school, Judge Howard reported that he had a general practice from 1973 to 1988. His practice included civil and criminal defense, criminal prosecution, domestic, municipal law, tort, workers compensation, real estate, wills and trusts, and labor law. From May 1988 to 1996, he served as the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Judge, including an eleven-month interim appointment to the Court of Appeals. From 1996 to the present, he has served as Judge on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

The following is Judge Howard's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Cobb v. Benjamin, 325 S.C. 573, 482 S.E.2d 589 (Ct. App. 1997), cert. denied, Apr. 10, 1998;
(b)   Seckinger v. The Vessel, Excaliber, 326 S.C. 382, 483 S.E.2d 775 (Ct. App. 1997), cert. denied, Apr. 24, 1998;
(c)   Gurganious v. City of Beaufort, 317 S.C. 481, 454 S.E.2d 912 (Ct. App. 1995), cert. denied, Nov. 6, 1995;
(d)   Jones v. City of Folly Beach, 326 S.C. 360, 483 S.E.2d 770 (Ct. App. 1997), cert. granted and aff'd. Jun. 22,1998;
(e)   State v. Greene, 330 S.C. 551, 499 S.E.2d 817 (Ct. App. 1997), cert. dismissed Jul. 8, 1998."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Howard's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Howard meets the constitutional qualifications and has the requisite character, reputation, ability, fitness, experience, and temperament. Accordingly, the Committee found that he is qualified to serve as judge of the Court of Appeals.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission found Judge Howard's work ethic to be impressive. They are further impressed with his willingness to help other judges on the Court.

Judge Howard is married to Daphne C. Howard. He has two children: William L. Howard (restaurant/lounge employee, age 29) and Tiffany Linn Howard (restaurant/lounge employee, age 29).

Judge Howard reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
South Carolina Bar Association;

Representative).

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Kittrell meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service in the Administrative Law Judge Division.

Judge Kittrell was born on October 3, 1941. He is 58 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Kittrell provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Kittrell.

Judge Kittrell 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 Kittrell reported that he has made no campaign expenditures.

Judge Kittrell 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 pending the outcome of screening; or
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Kittrell testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

The Commission found Judge Kittrell to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Kittrell described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
15th Annual Educational Conference on Workers Compensation, Myrtle Beach, SC., Oct. 27-30, 1993;
"Restructured State Government and the State of Administrative Law," CLE Seminar at the USC School of Law, Aug. 6, 1993;
"Administrative Law: Workers Compensation," National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Mar. 28-Apr. 2, 1993;
11th Annual Central Panel Directors Conference, Seattle, WA, Aug. 24-28, 1994;
Circuit Judge's School, Columbia, S.C., Apr. 26-28, 1994;
Magistrate's School, Columbia, S.C., Mar. 21-22, 1994;
12th Annual Central Panel Directors Conference, Austin, TX, Oct. 26-29, 1995;
"Legal Ethics," SC Bar, Greenville, S.C., Jan. 7, 1995;
"Administrative Law: Advanced," National Judicial Conference, May 14-19, 1995;
13th Annual Central Panel Directors Conference, Nashville, TN, Nov. 6-9, 1996;
1996 Annual Meeting, National Association of Administrative Law Judges, "Equal Justice Under the Law: Meeting the Challenge," Nov. 8-12, Nashville, TN;
1996 Annual Mid-Winter Meeting, National Association of Administrative Law Judges, "Writing for Administrative Law Judges," Jun. 6-9, 1996, New Orleans, LA;
"The Paper Gavel: Sanction Authority of the Administrative Judiciary," 21st Annual Spring Symposium, American Bar Association, Judicial Administration Division, National Conference of Administrative Law Judges, May 10, 1996, Washington, D.C.;
1997 Annual Mid-Winter Meeting, National Association of Administrative Law Judges, "Using Technology to Aid Professional Writing," "Using Logic to Make Your Rationale More Rational," and "Administrative Law Judges to Think Like Writers," May 14-17, 1997, Chicago, IL;
1997 Annual Meeting, National Association of Administrative Law Judges, "Public Perceptions of Justice: Judicial Independence and Accountability," Sept. 26-Oct. 1, 1997, Denver, CO;

Judge Kittrell reported that he has taught or lectured at the following bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs:
"History and Jurisdiction of the ALJD," Annual Meeting of the Natural Resources Section, South Carolina Bar, Hilton Head Island, S.C., Jun. 3, 1994;
"Transition from the South Carolina Tax Commission to the ALJD," State and Local Tax Study Group, Jan. 20, 1995, Columbia, S.C.;
"Procedures before the ALJD," South Carolina Assessors Association, Feb. 3, 1995, Columbia, S.C.;
Panel Discussion, Annual Meeting of the Natural Resources Section, South Carolina Bar, Asheville, N.C., Jun. 3, 1995;
"Practice Before the ALJD," South Carolina Certified Accountants Association, Jan. 18, 1995, Columbia, S.C.;
"State Agencies and the Courts," Agency Directors Organization Spring Forum, May 1, 1995, Columbia, S.C.;
"Review of Administrative Law Judge Decisions," Annual Conference of Superior Court Judges, Jun. 14, 1995, Asheville, N.C.;
"Appearances before ALJs," Annual Meeting of the South Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants, Nov. 16, 1995, Columbia, S.C.;
"1995 Developments at the Administrative Law Judge Division," That Was the Year That Was, South Carolina Bar CLE, Jan. 5, 1996, Columbia, S.C.;
"Practice Pointers and Motion Practice before the ALJD," Annual Meeting of the Government Law Section, South Carolina Bar, Jun. 20, 1997;
"Comments on the ALJD: History and Jurisdiction" to the administrative law class, School of Law, University of South Carolina, Mar. 18, 1997, Columbia, S.C.;

Judge Kittrell reported that he has published the following books or articles:
"Tax Procedure Under the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act: A 'User-Friendly' Approach," South Carolina Trial Lawyer

Fall 1995, p. 32;
"ALJs in South Carolina," South Carolina Lawyer

May-Jun. 1996, p. 42.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittrell did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittrell did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kittrell has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Kittrell 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 Kittrell reported that he enlisted in the U.S. Navy in August 1965 at Columbia, South Carolina. In September 1965, he became an officer candidate at the United States Naval Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island. Judge Kittrell graduated in early February 1966 from the school, receiving a commission as an Ensign in the United States Navy. After staying at Newport for two months while attending communication school, in April 1966, Judge Kittrell received orders to serve as assistant to the Flag Secretary for the Vice Admiral of the Second Fleet aboard USS Newport News. He served for two admirals in that position until September 1966, when he received orders for service in South Vietnam. After training for several months at Long Beach and Camp Pendleton, California, Judge Kittrell flew to South Vietnam on January 21, 1968. He served with the Inshore Undersea Warfare Group in Vung Tau, South Vietnam, until he received orders to leave in early December 1968. Judge Kittrell flew to San Francisco, California, where he was Honorably Discharged from active service. Judge Kittrell attained the rank of full Lieutenant prior to leaving South

Judge Kittrell reported that as a member of the Judiciary, he is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Kittrell reported that he has previously served as Commissioner on the South Carolina Workers Compensation Commission from Nov. 16, 1990 to Feb. 28, 1994.

(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Kittrell appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Kittrell appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Judge Kittrell was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.

Since his graduation from law school, Judge Kittrell reported that from April 1971 to August 1971 he was an Adjudication Officer for the Veterans Administration on Assembly Street in Columbia, South Carolina. His responsibilities included reviewing requests from veterans and/or their dependents for various VA benefits, reviewing the various laws and regulations applicable thereto, and authorizing such benefits where allowable and appropriate. From August 1971 to February 1973, Judge Kittrell practiced law with the firm of Dennis and Dennis in Moncks Corner, South Carolina. His practice was general in nature, with emphasis on real estate, family, torts, and criminal law. From February 1973 to August 1975, Judge Kittrell served as a Trust Officer with the South Carolina National Bank, first as a new business development officer in the Columbia office and subsequently in the Charleston office. From August 1975 to June 1976, Judge Kittrell attended the University of Florida School of Law as a student in its graduate program in taxation. He was awarded the degree of Master of Laws in Taxation. From June 1976 to November 1976, Judge Kittrell worked with the law firm of Stuckey and Wise. He stayed with them a short time before returning to the corporate office of the Trust Department, South Carolina National Bank, Columbia, South Carolina. From November 1976 to August 1977, he worked as an officer in the corporate trust office, analyzing new business development statewide for the General Trust Officer. From August 1977 to September 30,

The following is Judge Kittrell's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Sobhi A. Girgis, M.D. v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (State Board of Medical Examiners), No. 94-ALJ-11-0274-AP, affirmed in part and reversed in part by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Op. Number 2857, filed Jun. 23, 1998. This case held that the State Board of Medical Examiners was required to furnish a physician a copy of the initial complaint against him, in accordance with S.C. Code Ann. Section 40-47-212 (1986);
(b)   Haley Farms, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and Raymond E. Wells, No. 97-ALJ-07-198-CC. This case held that the Department of Health and Environmental Control failed to follow its own guidelines for agricultural permitting when it issued a construction permit for a poultry facility which was to be located in close proximity to neighboring property lines and to a fresh tomato packing house, and that it is proper to consider nuisance factors in determining whether an agricultural animal facility permit should be issued. This case is on appeal to the DHEC Board;
(c)   South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and Sierra Club v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; Port Royal Plantation; and Town of Hilton Head Island, No. 97-ALJ-07-0087-CC. This case held that S.C. Code Ann. Section 48-39-290, which provides prohibitions against certain construction projects on the active beach, cannot be considered in isolation from the entire Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended by the Beachfront Management Act. When considered in context, Section 48-39-290 does not prohibit DHEC/OCRM from issuing a permit for the construction and

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Kittrell's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Kittrell meets the qualifications as set out by the evaluative criteria.

Judge Kittrell is married to Kathryn Williams Kittrell. He has two children: Erika Williams Kittrell (Junior Achievement employee, age 26); Benjamin Christian Kittrell (age 13).

Judge Kittrell reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
American Bar Association;
American Bar Association, Judicial Division, National Conference of

Administrative Law Judges;
South Carolina Bar Association;
Greenville County Bar Association;
National Association of Administrative Law Judges (National

Secretary, 1996-1997, 1997-1998);

Judges from states having central panels of administrative law

judges).

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Kosko meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Mr. Kosko was born in Tampa, Florida. He is a resident of Georgetown, South Carolina. Mr. Kosko provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Kosko.

Mr. Kosko 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. Kosko reported that a group of dissatisfied citizens sued the Mayor of Pawleys Island over an annexation matter. After months of discovery, the plaintiffs then named the Mayor Pro Tem and Mr. Kosko as Assistant County Attorney. After a month of vigorous discovery, the Mayor Pro Tem and Mr. Kosko were dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice.

Mr. Kosko also reported that he was involved in a suit on accounting arising out of a law partnership. After the court determined the terms of the partnership, the accounts were settled and balanced. The dispute arose over the interpretation of the terms of the partnership.

Mr. Kosko also reported that a client sued because an answer was not filed in a medical malpractice suit. He was sued as his personal attorney, as was the attorney for the doctor's malpractice insurance company. The case was complicated by the fact that the doctor was sued one week earlier in the Court of Common Pleas and the following

Mr. Kosko reported that his campaign expenditures have been in the form of postage.

Mr. Kosko testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to the 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. Kosko 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. Kosko to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The practice and procedure questions were waived for Mr. Kosko because he met expectations on practice and procedure questions given to him during a previous screening within the past year.

Mr. Kosko reported that until approximately June 1996, he served on the South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Committee, having served for approximately 15 years. He was on the Executive Committee of CLE for approximately eight years. During this time he was actively involved in participating in CLE seminars, arranging speakers for seminars, as well as selecting topics. He has been a presenter or facilitator in numerous CLE seminars throughout the years since his graduation from law school. Mr. Kosko has attended numerous aviation CLE symposia in Washington, D.C., and at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. He has been invited and has attended the Federal Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference. He conducted a seminar for the Georgetown County Bar Association on ethics. Mr. Kosko has met and, in most years, substantially exceeded the required CLE requirements of the Supreme Court. He has attended mediation and arbitration courses leading to his certification as a Mediator and Arbitrator in both state and federal courts.

Mr. Kosko reported that he has been a speaker or lecturer at the following bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs:

Taught part time (mostly supervision) in the USC Law School Clinics program (1971-73) (The students were doing their practical work in the Family Court.);

Started the still continuing series of Bench-Bar Conferences for the South Carolina Bar CLE and was the Facilitator for the first of this series;

Appearances at numerous SC Bar CLE panels at various programs;

Taught a six-week course for the Georgetown County Sheriff's Department on Constitutional Law to new reserve Deputies (1995);

Last fall, conducted a recurrent legal training program for SLED Constables for Horry and Georgetown TEC.

Mr. Kosko reported that he has published the following books and/or articles:

South Carolina Jurisprudence, Aviation and Airports, 2 S.C. Juris Aviation and Airports;

Videotaping Depositions for the Perry Mason Generation, South Carolina Lawyer, Volume 1, Number 3, Page 20.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Kosko did not reveal any evidence of grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Kosko did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Kosko has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Kosko was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

Mr. Kosko reported that a South Carolina tax lien may have been filed against him for late filing of a tax return for a professional association. However, the tax return showed an overpayment of taxes. The reason for it not being timely filed was the delay in receiving it from the accountant. After the filing, there was a tax refund.

(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Kosko reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV." He reported he has never asked for a Martindale-Hubbell rating.

Mr. Kosko reported that he was appointed as a State Constable since approximately 1969 and continues to serve in that position. Mr. Kosko reported that he was appointed Assistant Town Attorney for Pawleys Island from 1994 to 1997. Mr. Kosko was appointed Assistant

(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Kosko appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Kosko appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Mr. Kosko was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971 and was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1981.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Kosko reported that he was an Assistant Solicitor for Richland County from 1971 to 1975, and was involved in criminal prosecution--first in the Family Court and then in the Circuit Court. From 1975 to 1981, he was engaged in general practice with Kosko & Coffas, in Columbia, South Carolina, where his emphasis was in aviation matters. From 1981 to 1983, he worked with the law firm of Kennedy, Price, Kosko, and Coffas, a merged law firm with a general practice. He maintained the emphasis on aviation and complex matters. From 1983 to 1985, he worked with Kosko, Coffas, and Sipes, a general practice law firm, keeping the emphasis on aviation and complex matters. From 1986 to the present, he has worked at the Law Firm of George C. Kosko, a general practice with emphasis on aviation and admiralty matters, associating lawyers who specialize in matters such as tax, estate planning, condominium property matters, etc., when clients' needs require it. Mr. Kosko also served as Assistant Town Attorney for Pawleys Island, reporting to Town Attorney, Reese Daniel.

The Commission requested Mr. Kosko to provide a more detailed listing of his recent criminal law practice experience. Mr. Kosko responded:

"About three or four years ago, I taught a criminal law course for the Georgetown County Sheriff's Department. This course consisted of a review of the criminal law with respect to search and seizure, arrest, and criminal procedure. Classes lasted three hours at night and extended through an entire summer. As a result of this, I had occasion to revisit the body of criminal law for South Carolina in order to be an effective instructor. Over ninety percent of the students in the class

Because I have volunteered as a pro bono mediator in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Judge Maring excused me from court-appointed criminal matters. Therefore, I have not had the occasion to be court appointed other than criminal matters in the Family Court. I have handled some minor criminal cases in Magistrate's Court as accommodation to clients. The last major criminal case in which I was involved was approximately 1986, and involved a murder indictment in Lexington County. That case was 'over indicted' and the indictment should have been manslaughter or vehicular homicide; but in any event, after a full trial and the defense had presented its case, the court granted a directed verdict of not guilty."

Mr. Kosko reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:     approximately 3 times a year
(b)   State:       approximately twice monthly

Mr. Kosko reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       93%
(b)   Criminal:     2%
(c)   Domestic:   5%

Mr. Kosko reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       5%
(b)   Non-jury:   10%

Mr. Kosko provided that he most often served as chief counsel in these matters.

The following is Mr. Kosko's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   North American Specialty Ins. Co., v. Shore and P/Y Shore Power, 8:95-226-20, United States District Court for South Carolina, Hon. G. Ross Anderson, Judge. This case was tried to establish the doctrine of uberimae fides in admiralty jurisdiction. The court held no coverage, but did not address the issue of ultimate good faith;
(b)   Floyd v. Ohio General Ins. Co. and Southern Aviation Insurance Co., 3:88-1037-3, United States District Court for South Carolina. This case involved a crash, and the death of four persons in Virginia, on a

Mr. Kosko listed five civil appeals which he has personally handled:
(a)   Rouse v. McCrory, 353 S.E.2d 130, 291 S.C. 218 (S.C. 1986);
(b)   South Carolina Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Broach, 353 S.E.2d 450, 291 S.C. 349, (S.C. 1987);
(c)   Accordini v. Security Central, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 713, 283 S.C. 16, (S.C.App. 1984);
(d)   South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Collins, 237 S.E.2d 358, 269 S.C. 282, (S.C. 1977);
(e)   Stewart v. Floyd, 265 S.E.2d 254, 274 S.C. 437 (S.C. 1980).

Mr. Kosko reported he was appointed Special Referee by the Circuit Court on three occasions within the past two years, and was

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Kosko's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee was of the opinion that Mr. Kosko was qualified for the position of Circuit Court Judge in the State of South Carolina and recommended him as a candidate without reservation.

Mr. Kosko is married to Polly Spann Kosko. He has no children.

Mr. Kosko reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional organizations:
American Bar Association;
District of Columbia Bar Association;
(c)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(d)   American Judicature Society;
(e)   Lawyers/Pilots Bar Association;
(f)   National Transportation Safety Board Bar Association (Founding Member);
(g)   Aviation Insurance Association;
(h)   Defense Research Institute.

Mr. Kosko provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Coastal University, Wall School of Business (Board of Visitors);
(b)   Georgetown Memorial Hospital (Board of Foundation);
(c)   Sertoma International (Distinguished Governor);
(d)   Richland Sertoma Club (President);
(e)   Pawleys Island Rotary Club;
(f)   Hibernian Society of Charleston;
(g)   Quiet Birdman;
(h)   DeBordieu Colony Club;
(i)     Capital City Club.

Mr. Kosko provided, "practicing law for 26 years has afforded me a wide range of experiences. From my early days as a solicitor working my way up to trying murder cases, to handling extremely complicated airplane crash matters, I believe I now have the maturity to

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lee meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Judge Lee was born on September 17, 1958. She is 40 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Lee provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Lee.

Judge Lee demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Lee reported that she has spent $10.00 on this campaign.

Judge Lee 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.

Judge Lee 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 Lee to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Lee described her continuing legal education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   1992   Carried over credits from 1991
Problem, What Problem? (Ethics 6.0);
(b)   1993   Carried over credits from 1992
Restructured State Government (6.0)
Civil Law Update I (3.0)
Civil Law Update II (3.0)
Education Financing in South Carolina (2.0)
Criminal Practice (6.5)
Civil Law Update III (3.0)
Drafting Criminal Laws under Sentencing Classification (1.0);
(c)   1994   Carried over credits from 1993
Orientation School for Magistrates (6.0)
Orientation School for Circuit Judges (5.75)
What Every Lawyer Should Know About Environmental Law (1.5)
National Judicial College-Administrative Fair Hearings (2 weeks);
(d)   1995   Carried over credits from 1994
Administrative Law & Practice in South Carolina (1.5);
(e)   1996   Carried over credits from 1995
School Law in South Carolina (6.0)
The Woman Advocate in South Carolina (7.58)
Ethics Seminar (3.0)
Criminal Practice (6.0);
(f)   1997   Carried over credits from 1996
National Judicial College - Advanced Evidence (1 week)
Summary of 1997 Revisions of Lawyer Disciplinary Process & the Ethics Act (2.0)
South Carolina Woman Advocate: Making Practice Perfect (7.5).

Judge Lee reported that she has taught the following law-related courses or has lectured at the following programs:
(a)   JCLE   Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (Aug. 1985)
Topic: Settling the Family Court Record on Appeal;
(b)   Basic Federal Court Practice (Sept. 1985)
Topic: Pretrial Orders, Sanctions & Local Rules;
(c)   Drafting Criminal Laws under the Sentencing Classification Act (Nov. 1993);

Judge Lee reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not reveal any evidence of criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of any founded complaints or grievances made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Lee has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Lee was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:

Judge Lee reported that she is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell to her knowledge, but she was listed as an associate with McNair Law Firm, P.A.

(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Lee appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Lee appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Judge Lee was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984, the Louisiana Bar in 1983, and the Texas Bar in 1982.

Since her graduation from law school, Judge Lee was a law clerk for the Honorable Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Louisiana Fourth Circuit

Judge Lee reported that she was elected by the General Assembly in February 1994 to the office of Administrative Law Judge which is a quasi-judicial function within the executive branch of government. The jurisdiction is limited to fact-finding within the context of administrative hearings involving taxes, licensing, permitting, and rate-making. The Administrative Law Division also acts as an appellate body in matters such as occupational licensing and foster care licensing. Judge Lee conducts public hearings and decides the reasonableness and need for regulations promulgated by certain state agencies.

The following is Judge Lee's account of her five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et al. v. S.C. Dept. of Insurance and S.C. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Docket No. 96-ALJ-09-0043-CC. Application for an insurance rate increase was contested by the Department of Consumer Affairs on the basis that the rate increase was excessive;
(b)   M.T. Golf, Inc. v. S.C. Dept. of Revenue, Docket No. 95-ALJ-17-0490-CC. State tax case involving the assessment of admissions tax against a country club;
(c)   D'Eredita & Fogle v. S.C. DHEC & Fogle, Docket No. 94-ALJ-07-0319-CC. Hearing on wastewater permit issued in connection with the construction of a hog farm. Neighbors objected to the permit. Issue was whether the permit could be transferred from a prior owner of the property and what constitutes a change in circumstances requiring public notice;

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Lee's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Lee to be a well-qualified and highly-respected judge. The Committee further stated that it wholeheartedly approves of her candidacy for the Circuit Court bench.

The Commission found Judge Lee to have a keen intellect and to be an absolutely outstanding person. The Commission further found Judge Lee to be an exceptionally well-qualified candidate for the Circuit Court bench.

Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children: Julian Christopher Summey (age 10); Amanda Leigh Summey (age 6).

Judge Lee reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   American Bar Association (1985-90);
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association;
(d)   Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances and Discipline (1987-1989);
(e)   Richland County Bar Association;
(f)   Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education (June 1987-June 1988).

Judge Lee reported that she is a member of Columbia Chapter of The Links, Inc., a volunteer organization whose purpose is to promote

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. McGowan meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.

Mr. McGowan was born on February 4, 1952. He is 46 years old and a resident of Laurens, South Carolina. Mr. McGowan 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. McGowan.

Mr. McGowan 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.

The Commission determined that no founded complaint had been filed against the candidate with any association or disciplinary committee.

Mr. McGowan reported that he has no campaign expenditures.

Mr. McGowan 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. McGowan 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. McGowan to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. McGowan reported that he has met the requirements for continuing legal education during the past five years. His practice has been a general practice and, therefore, he has attempted to attend seminars which would be helpful in the areas of workers compensation, civil trial practice, family law, and rules utilization. He reported he has most enjoyed year-end review of significant developments or changes in the law.

Mr. McGowan reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Mr. McGowan reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. McGowan did not reveal any founded grievances being made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. McGowan did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. McGowan has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. McGowan 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. McGowan reported that in 1983 he received a Martindale-Hubbell rating of "CV" (fair to high). Since he was not satisfied with this rating, he contacted Martindale-Hubbell and requested that he not be rated. Thus, he has not been rated since.

Mr. McGowan reported that he was appointed as Commissioner of Public Works to fill the unexpired term of Marshall W. Abercrombie. The term was from December 1994 through May 1996.

Mr. McGowan appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. McGowan appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Mr. McGowan was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979.

Since his graduation from law school and admission to the bar, Mr. McGowan reported he has been in the same location and in the same practice. The practice is a general "walk in," involving family law, real estate, personal injury, and criminal law. Until June of 1994, he practiced with his father-in-law, Marshall W. Abercrombie, who founded the practice. Mr. Abercrombie died on November 23, 1994.

Mr. McGowan reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   Only one appearance that Mr. McGowan can remember. This occurred upon a civil case being removed to Federal Court due to diversity of citizenship. By agreement, the matter was returned to the Court of Common Pleas for the State of South Carolina.
(b)   State:   All other appearances were in state court. He appears somewhat frequently in the Court of General Sessions and the Court of Common Pleas. He is in Family Court almost constantly.

Mr. McGowan reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       15%
(b)   Criminal:     10%
(c)   Domestic:   65%
Note: These figures represent number of cases and not income derived.

Mr. McGowan reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       1%
(b)   Non-jury:   99%

Mr. McGowan provided that he most often served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Mr. McGowan's account of his most significant litigated matter:

I know of no other significant litigated matter that I have handled. Most civil cases have been settled and most Family Court matters have ended at the trial court level. Although significant to all parties and the attorneys involved, none stand out."

The following is a civil appeal that Mr. McGowan has personally handled:
(a)   Robinson v. Tyson, 319 SC 360, 461 S.E.2d 397 (Ct. App. 1995); Date of Decision: Jul. 3, 1995.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. McGowan's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee noted that it was very impressed with Mr. McGowan and found him to be extremely qualified, very personable, and a good listener. The Committee also viewed the candidate to have a great deal of Family Court experience.

Mr. McGowan is married to Sadie Lee Abercrombie McGowan. He has two children: Joseph Wilson McGowan IV, (age 19); Marshall West McGowan, (age 14).

Mr. McGowan reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Laurens County Bar Association (former President).

Mr. McGowan provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Laurens County Touchdown Club (President 1986);
(b)   Laurens County Chamber of Commerce (Member);
(c)   Laurens Academy Board of Directors (Chairman 1994-1997).

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Milling meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Mr. Milling was born June 6, 1948. He is 50 years old and a resident of Darlington, South Carolina. Mr. Milling provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Milling.

Mr. Milling 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. Milling reported that he has spent $297.00 on postage and stationery to send out resumes and notice of interest in the judicial position to members of the Legislature. Mr. Milling provided that he reported these expenses to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

Mr. Milling testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to the screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Milling 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. Milling to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Milling reported that during the past five years he has attended CLE seminars to acquire updates on various aspects of the legal practice and to acquire further information in certain areas of the law.

Mr. Milling reported that he has not been a speaker or lecturer at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Mr. Milling reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Milling did not reveal any evidence of founded complaints or grievances made against him. The Commission's investigation also did not reveal any evidence of criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Milling did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Milling has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Milling 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. Milling reported that from December 22, 1969, to December 21, 1976, he was a member of the S.C. Army National Guard, E5, and received an Honorable Discharge. Mr. Milling further reported that from February 11, 1977, to November 24, 1983, he was a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves and received an Honorable Discharge.

Mr. Milling reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Milling appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Milling appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Mr. Milling was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Milling reported that he was associated with A. Lee Chandler and Benny R. Greer in their partnership, Greer & Chandler, from 1973 until 1976, when Chief Justice Chandler (Ret.) was elected Circuit Judge for the Fourth Judicial Circuit. He was a partner with the firm of Greer & Milling from 1976 until 1988, when Judge Greer (Ret.) was elected Family

Mr. Milling reports that his chief areas of practice are personal injury claims, construction claims, Workers Compensation cases, real estate and probate matters, utility law, issues involving construction and application of certain legislative enactments, criminal law, corporate matters, divorce and family law, and school law. He was a part-time Assistant Public Defender in 1985 and part-time Chief Public Defender from 1986 to 1988 and 1994 to 1997. He served as part-time Assistant Solicitor from 1977 to 1980 and served again beginning October 1, 1997. Mr. Milling reported he was the attorney for the Darlington County School District from 1988 to 1996. From 1989 to the present, Mr. Milling has been the attorney for the towns of Lamar and Society Hill.

Mr. Milling reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:     3 cases during the last 5 years
(b)   State:       Civil: approximately 3 to 4 cases actually tried a year

Criminal: handling pleas for trials during the term

Family Court: 2 to 3 cases per month

Mr. Milling reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       65%
(b)   Criminal:     20%
(c)   Domestic:   15%

Mr. Milling reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       10%
(b)   Non-jury:   5% (approximately 20%, if domestic cases are

included)

Mr. Milling provided that he most often served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Mr. Milling's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Stanley v. Darlington County School District, 879 F. Supp. 1341 (D.S.C. 1995); 915 F. Supp. 764 (D.S.C. 1995); 84 F. 3rd 707 (4th Cir.

The following are five civil appeals Mr. Milling has personally handled:
(a)   Bob A. Shirley v. Katherine Sydney Mims Shirley; Heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court; filed Aug. 7, 1990, Op. No. 90-MO-224;
(b)   Ready Mix Concrete Company v. Industrial Paving, Inc.; Heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals; Filed Dec. 23, 1992, Op. No. 92UP179;
(c)   Carolina Power & Light Company v. Darlington County; Heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Decided May 6, 1991, 304 S.C.525, 405 S.E.2d 823 (1991);
(d)   Carolina Power & Light Company v. Darlington County; Heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court; Decided Jun. 1, 1993, 315 JC5, 431 S.E.2d 580 (1993);
(e)   C.R. Crib and Vacie S. Cribb v. Alexander Paul and Darlington County; Heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals; filed May 14, 1996; Op. No. 96-UP-144, by Order dated Jun. 21, 1996. The South Carolina Court of Appeals denied the Petition for Rehearing and by Order dated Nov. 8, 1996, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. By order dated Apr. 28, 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Mr. Paul's petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Mr. Milling reported that he has served as a Special Referee from time to time in Common Pleas non-jury matters.

Mr. Milling reported that he unsuccessfully ran for Darlington County Council in 1980.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Milling's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found that Mr. Milling is an exceptional candidate for this position and recommends/approves this candidate without reservation.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission was very impressed with Mr. Milling.

Mr. Milling is married to Gail Stokes Milling. He has three children: Jonathan McKey Milling (took S.C. Bar 7/98, age 25); David Lee Milling (student, age 22); Helen Dodson Milling (student, age 18).

Mr. Milling reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   Darlington County Bar Association (President, 1991);
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Association.

Mr. Milling provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Darlington Kiwanis Club;
(b)   Board of Directors for Grove Hill Cemetery Corporation;
(c)   Darlington Presbyterian Church (Elder).

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Mollycheck meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.

Ms. Mollycheck was born on March 31, 1955. She is 43 years old and a resident of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Ms. Mollycheck provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Mollycheck.

Ms. Mollycheck 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. Mollycheck reported that she sent about 30 letters announcing her candidacy in May 1998. Her total expenditures were about $10.00 for postage and about $12.00 for stationery. After her screening, Ms. Mollycheck reported her expenditures totaled $50.00.

Ms. Mollycheck testified she has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to the screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Ms. Mollycheck 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. Mollycheck to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Ms. Mollycheck reported that her continuing legal education during the past five years has consisted of 24 hours of CLE courses per year. Her CLE hours for the past five years totaled 122.5. Of that figure, 109 were Family Court seminars.

Ms. Mollycheck reported that she has been speaker or lecturer at the following bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs:
(a)   York Technical College: a course for secretaries taking the business law section of the Certified Professional Secretaries exam (1987);
(b)   Lecture on Law Day, Rock Hill Career Development Center (1994).

Ms. Mollycheck reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Ms. Mollycheck did not reveal any evidence of founded complaints or grievances made against her. The Commission's investigation also did not reveal any evidence of criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Mollycheck did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Mollycheck has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Ms. Mollycheck 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. Mollycheck reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Ms. Mollycheck reported she was the recipient of the following awards:
(a)   Second place in the National Outstanding Student competition of the American Society for Personnel Administration while as a graduate student;
(b)   Young Careerist of the Year, District II, South Carolina Business and Professional Women's Clubs, 1979 to 1981.

(6)   Physical Health:

Ms. Mollycheck appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Ms. Mollycheck appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Ms. Mollycheck was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984. She took the bar exam twice.

Since her graduation from law school, Ms. Mollycheck reported that from 1984 to 1985, she worked as a law clerk and associate at Byrd & Byrd in Rock Hill, South Carolina. There she performed research, appellate work, collections, assisted with civil cases, Family Court, and

Ms. Mollycheck reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:
(b)   State:       about twice a week

Ms. Mollycheck reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       1-2%
(b)   Criminal:     0%
(c)   Domestic:   98-99%

Ms. Mollycheck reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       0%
(b)   Non-jury:   100%

Ms. Mollycheck provided she most often served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Ms. Mollycheck's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Ramsey v. Hubbard, Unpublished Op. No. 91-UP-062 (Ct. App., 1991). I was the guardian ad litem in a contested case to terminate parental rights of the parents, and an adoption. Trial judge originally denied the termination but reversed himself at the motion to reconsider hearing. I developed a method of investigating, which included the preparation of a written chronology of interviews, pleadings and documents, which I have utilized in subsequent guardian cases. The case was appealed. I participated in the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, stating in part, 'In reaching this result, we are particularly influenced by the recommendation of the guardian ad litem. Her conscientious discharge of her duties is impressive;'
(b)   Hough v. Hough, (hearing held 1992). I served as the guardian ad litem in a custody case involving children ages seven and three years

After I was retained in 1994, a court-appointed psychologist evaluated the allegations of Satanism. By this time, the grandparents had separated and the grandmother took the boys with her, denying the father and grandfather access to the children. The grandmother, who originated the story of Satanism, accused the grandfather of being unfit. The psychologist concluded there were no findings to justify the restriction of the visits of the father and grandfather. The psychologist further testified there were no findings that the children had been exposed to satanic abuse or ritual abuse. The father, at this interim hearing, was granted visitation.

The grandmother denied the visitation and a rule to show cause hearing was held in 1995. The grandmother's defense was the children were afraid they would be exposed to devil worship. The court made DSS a party to the action and removed the children from the grandmother. A final hearing was held which now included seven attorneys. The grandmother agreed to a finding against her of mental injury to the children. The court found no abuse by the grandfather or father. Physical custody of the children was transferred to the

The following are five civil appeals Ms. Mollycheck has personally handled:
(a)   Campi v. Dudley, Memorandum Op. No. 89-MO-04 (Ct. App. 1989).
(b)   Freeman v. Freeman, Unpublished Op. No. 96-UP-073 (Ct. App. 1996). Ms. Mollycheck was retained by James W. Hancock, Esq., to research and write the brief;
(c)   Jones v. Jones, Unpublished Op. No. 97-UP-424 (Ct. App. 1997);
(d)   Glenn v. Glenn, Unpublished Op. No. 98-UP-071 (Ct. App. 1998);
(e)   Juby v. Cloer, filed Jan. 23, 1998, pending. Tony M. Jones, Esq., retained Ms. Mollycheck to research and write the appeal.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Mollycheck's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Mollycheck extremely qualified and noted the comments received were positive in nature. The Committee also found that Ms. Mollycheck has more family court experience than most of the other judicial candidates and her knowledge of the Family Court system was impressive.

Ms. Mollycheck is married to Laurance Robert Mitlin. She has two children: Frank Mollycheck Mitlin (age 9); Rebecca Mollycheck Mitlin (age 1 year).

Ms. Mollycheck reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association (1984-present);
(b)   American Bar Association (1984-present);
(c)   American Trial Lawyers Association, Family Law Section;

Ms. Mollycheck provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
Rock Hill Personnel Association, 1979-1986 (Second Vice-President,

Secretary, and Legislative Chairman at various times);
Winthrop University Alumni Association (Second vice-president,

1981-1983);
American Association of University Women, 1980-present;
Phi Kappa Phi, (Member, while at Winthrop University);
Alpha Lambda Delta, (Member, While at Winthrop University).

Ms. Mollycheck provided that she has been a certified Family Court Mediator since 1995.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Nicholson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Mr. Nicholson was born on September 30, 1942. He is 56 years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Mr. Nicholson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson reported that his campaign expenditures at the time of completion of his personal data questionnaire included mailing letters to all members of the Legislature with a cost of approximately $50.00.

Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson 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. Nicholson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Nicholson reported that he has obtained approximately 12 to 15 hours of continuing legal education each year at various seminars on trial practice and legal updates in civil and criminal law.

Mr. Nicholson reported that he has taught civil and criminal law at Tri-County Technical College to local law enforcement on four occasions.

Mr. Nicholson reported that he has not published any books or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Nicholson did not reveal any evidence of founded complaints or grievances. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Nicholson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Nicholson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson reported that he served in the United States Air Force active duty from 1965 to 1970. From 1971 to 1988, he served in the Air National Guard and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in October 1988.

Mr. Nicholson reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Mr. Nicholson reported that he was elected to the Orangeburg County Council and served three terms from 1976 to 1982.

(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Nicholson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Nicholson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Mr. Nicholson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Nicholson reported that during the twenty-five years he has been an attorney, he has practiced in all areas of the law at Fogle & Watson in 1973, Fogle & Nicholson in 1975, J. C. Nicholson from 1975 to 1978, Nicholson & Williams from 1978 to 1981, Assistant Solicitor for Greenville in 1982, Epps & Krause from 1982 to 1985, Epps, Krause & Nicholson from 1985 to 1994, and Epps, Nicholson & Stathakis from 1995 to 1998. Mr. Nicholson reported that the following is a list of criminal matters that he handled as an Assistant Solicitor: DUI, rape, murder (capital and non-capital), robbery, drug possession and sale, burglary, reckless homicide, manslaughter, assault and battery with intent to kill as well as high and aggravated larceny, and receiving stolen goods. The previous cases were performed as sole counsel, but Mr. Nicholson does not remember names and cites due to the time and number tried during his five years as Assistant Solicitor.

The following are some cases tried by Mr. Nicholson as a private attorney:
"(a)   Jones v. USC Medical School, September 1995. Medical malpractice; was a hysterectomy necessary; (92-CP-04-3367);
(b)   Defended a Co-defendant in the capital case State v. Shirley. This case ended in a plea at the end of the presentation of evidence. His client received 30 years for accessory to armed robbery; Defended other criminal defendants with various charges;
(c)   Defended TranSouth Financial in several cases with one trial on abuse of process and malicious prosecution;
(d)   Tried several defect in highway cases against the SC Highway Department and tried one Railroad Crossing against Seaboard Railroad Crossing;
(e)   Tried a defective design case against Kubota Tractor Company (Davis and Elrod v. Kubota Tractor) twice with the first being a mistrial;
(f)   Tried a wrongful death case where a child was killed getting off a school bus;
(g)   Tried a warranty case against Toyota Motor Company for defective brakes under implied warranty for a particular purpose theory;
(h)   Mr. Nicholson reported that he has handled several discrimination cases in Federal Court and has tried numerous traffic accident cases, and several insurance bad faith cases."

Mr. Nicholson reported that the above are samples of criminal and civil cases which he has tried as chief and sole counsel to a conclusion with a jury. These do not include trials in Family Court, Workers Compensation, Magistrate's Court, and Probate Court.

Mr. Nicholson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:     6 times per year
(b)   State:       35-40 times per year
(c)   Other:       Workers Compensation 35 times a year; Family Court

75 times per year; Probate Court 5 times per year;

Social Security 25 times per year

Mr. Nicholson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       60%
(b)   Criminal:     10%
(c)   Domestic:   30%

Mr. Nicholson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       40%
(b)   Non-jury:   60%

Mr. Nicholson provided that he served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Mr. Nicholson's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Circuit Court - This case was against the South Carolina Highway Department. This case was quite technical and difficult to handle and try when the offer of settlement was only $7,000. Mr. Nicholson received a verdict of $350,000;
(b)   Circuit Court - This case was a personal injury with chiropractor bills of $5,000. Mr. Nicholson received a verdict of $17,000. This case was important in that it was the only significant verdict for a plaintiff with chiropractor bills in Anderson County for that year;
(c)   Circuit Court with Appeal to SC Supreme Court - This case involved a defective intersection and was difficult to try. The case was appealed to the SC Supreme Court. Lucille Vaughn, et al. v. SC Highway Department, 386 S.E.2d 297 (1989);
(d)   Circuit Court - This case was a medical malpractice with a verdict for the Defendant after 61/2 hours of jury deliberation. It was significant because Mr. Nicholson learned from his losses and mistakes. The Judge allowed three of the doctor's former patients on the jury since the Plaintiff was out of strikes;
(e)   General Sessions - Mr. Nicholson prosecuted a death penalty case in which the jury returned a life sentence. This case showed Mr. Nicholson the difficulty in getting twelve people to agree to the death penalty."

The following are five civil appeals that Mr. Nicholson has personally handled:
(a)   Lucille Vaughn, et al. v. SC Highway Department, 386 S.E.2d 297 (1989);
(b)   Donna Byers v. Westinghouse, 425 S.E.2d 23 (1992);
(c)   David Ramsey v. Frigidaire, #97-1383, (4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1988);
(d)   Mona Grove v. SC Department of Education, (Supreme Court settled on appeal two weeks before oral argument);

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Nicholson's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Mr. Nicholson was found to meet and exceed the qualifications as set out by the evaluative criteria.

The Commission noted that Mr. Nicholson was an outstanding lawyer and was one of only three or four candidates that the Citizens Committee found to exceed the qualifications. The Commission expressed that Mr. Nicholson was very capable.

Mr. Nicholson is married to Janet S. Nicholson. He has four children: Amanda Dawson (teacher, age 28); Stacy Nicholson (Officer USAF, age 27); J. C. Nicholson, III (student, age 23); Lara Nicholson (waitress, age 19).

Mr. Nicholson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers;
(b)   South Carolina Bar (Member of the House of Delegates, 1995-1997).

Mr. Nicholson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Citadel Brigadier Club;
(b)   Citadel Association of Men;
(c)   University of South Carolina Alumni Association;
(d)   University of South Carolina Gamecock Club;
(e)   US Sailing Association;
(f)   Advisory Board of St. Francis Hospital Vitality Center.

Mr. Nicholson provided, "I believe that I have the patience, personality and knowledge to be a judge that will make proper decisions and treat everyone appearing before me with respect and courtesy. I can also be a 'hard nose' and sentence criminals according to their prior activities and the seriousness of the crime."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Short meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.

Judge Short was born on January 13, 1947. He is 51 years old and a resident of Chester, South Carolina. Judge Short provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Short.

Based on his 1997 screening, Judge Short demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Judge Short reported that he has made no campaign expenditures.

Judge Short 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 Short 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 Short to be intelligent and knowledgeable. The Commission waived the practice and procedure questions for Judge Short because of his recent screening for this position in 1997.

Judge Short described his continuing judicial education during the past five years as follows:

1997:

1996:
1/26   S.C. Mid-Year Bar Meeting, 6.00
1996 Annual Criminal Law Update Seminar
2/4-9   National Judicial College/Phoenix, Arizona, 23.33
Handling Capital Cases (Successfully completed
written examination)
4/12   Circuit Court Bench/Bar Seminar, 6.25
"Understanding the New S.C. Criminal Offenses and Penalties for "Serious" and "Most Serious" Crimes and Repeat Offenders"
5/15-17   1996 Circuit Court Judges' Spring Conference, 4.25
Appellate Practice; Indigent Defense; Probation and Parole; Alternative Dispute Resolution; Drug Court; Media and the Courtroom; Sentencing
8/21-23   1996 Annual Judicial Conference, 8.00
9/30-10/18   National Judicial College/Reno, Nevada, 30.0
Served as Group Facilitator for General Jurisdiction Course

1995:
1/13   S.C. Mid-Year Bar Meeting, 8.00
1995 Annual Criminal Law Update Seminar
2/13-15   Judges' Computer Training
5/17   1995 Circuit Court Judges' Spring Conference, 4.25
Federal Rules of Evidence
8/23-25   1995 Annual Judicial Conference, 8.00
9/15   South Carolina Legal Secretaries' Seminar, 12.0
Instructor for Seminar on Rules of Civil Procedure
9/29   Circuit Court Bench/Bar Fall Update, 6.00

1994:
1/21   S.C. Mid-Year Bar Meeting, 8.00
1994 Annual Criminal Law Update Seminar
5/18   1994 Circuit Court Judges' Spring Conference, 3.00
Criminal Sentencing Guidelines; Indigent Defense; Pre-Sentence Investigations; S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure
8/24-26   Annual Judicial Conference, 8.00
9/16   Circuit Court Bench/Bar Fall Update, 6.00
11/14-18   National Judicial Conference/Charleston, SC, 23.33
Advanced Evidence Course (Successfully completed written exam)

1993:
1/29   S.C. Mid-Year Bar Meeting,   8.00
1993 Annual Criminal Law Update Seminar
5/12-14   1993 Circuit Court Judges' Spring Conference, 4.25
Alternative Dispute Resolution; Criminal Dockets; Computer Technology for Judges; Civil Jury Charges
8/26-28   Annual Judicial Conference, 8.00
10/8   Circuit Court Bench/Bar Fall Update, 6.00

1992:
1/17   S.C. Mid-Year Bar Meeting, 8.00
1992 Annual Criminal Law Update Seminar
5/28-29   1992 Circuit Court Judges' Spring Conference, 4.25
Comparative Negligence; Local Orders; Cameras in the Courtroom; Judicial Ethics; Pattern Jury Charges; Federal Rules of Evidence; County/State Payments of Fees in Capital Murder Cases
7/12-8/7   National Judicial College/Reno, Nevada, 30.0
General Jurisdiction Course (Successfully completed written examination)
8/26-28   1992 Annual Judicial Conference, 8.00
10/9   Circuit Court Bench/Bar Fall Update, 6.00

1991:
7/24-26   New Circuit Court Judges' School
8/21-23   1991 Annual Judicial Conference, 8.00
10/25   Circuit Court Bench/Bar Fall Update, 6.00

Judge Short reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Sept. 15, 1995-Judge Short provided that he was the instructor for a seminar on Rules of Civil Procedure for the South Carolina Legal Secretaries' Association;
(b)   Sept. 30 - Oct. 18, 1996-Judge Short reported that he served as a Group Facilitator with the faculty for the General Jurisdiction Course for new Judges. He led group discussions four hours each day on a wide variety of legal topics.

Judge Short reported that he has not published any books or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Short did not reveal any evidence of founded complaints or grievances. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Short did not indicate any

The Commission also noted that Judge Short was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:

Judge Short reported that he was commissioned in the United States Army Reserve upon graduation from The Citadel in June 1968; however, he was deferred from active duty to attend law school from September 1968 to August 1971. He then reported for three months active duty and later finished his military duty with the National Guard and United States Army Reserve.

Judge Short reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Short provided that he served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1982 to 1991. He was appointed to the Chester County Airport Commission in 1978 and served until 1980. Judge Short was appointed Chester County Attorney in 1980 and served until 1982.

(6)   Physical Health:

Judge Short appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Judge Short appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Judge Short was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.

Since his graduation from law school, Judge Short began practicing law in November 1971, in Chester, South Carolina, with Fred H. Strickland and E. K. Hardin. He practiced law continuously in the same firm. In late 1972, he became a partner in the firm and in approximately June 1973, Mr. Hardin left the firm to become Probate Judge of Chester County. In July 1973, Mr. Strickland was tragically killed in a house fire and Judge Short became senior partner at the age of 26. Mr. William C. Keels graduated from law school in June 1973, and he and Judge Short began practicing law together at that time.

The following is Judge Short's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Louis J. Truesdale v. Parker D. Evatt, and the South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al. The subject of this Order deals with the reimbursement of expenses incurred by expert witnesses called upon by Petitioner Truesdale in his death penalty case. The Appeal of his case is reported at 301 S.C. 546, 393 S.E.2d 168;
(b)   State of South Carolina v. Gary Allen Rimert, Op. No. 24093, 446 S.E.2d 400. The issue addressed in this Order is whether or not a jury in a criminal case is entitled to hear evidence regarding the sentence a Defendant may receive if he is found guilty but mentally ill. I held that the jury's function was to determine guilt and that information about sentencing is irrelevant to such a determination. The Supreme Court affirmed;
(c)   Carol Ann Berkebile v. William C. Outen, 311 S.C. 50 and 426 S.E.2d 760. This Order holds that losses from video poker playing are not recoverable pursuant to Section 32-1-10, S.C. Code Ann. I held that Section 32-1-10 removed the common law bar to the recovery of losses from engaging in illegal gambling. Therefore, if the loss resulted from legal gambling, Section 32-1-10 does not apply and a Plaintiff cannot recover. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed and I was reversed;
(d)   City of Folly Beach v. Atlantic House Properties, Op. No. 24384, ___ S.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___. In this Order, I ordered that the Defendants in a condemnation action pay the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to Section 28-2-510 S.C. Code Ann. Supreme Court reversed;
(e)   Betty Williams, et al. v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Rock Hill and New Hope Carolinas, Inc. This Order affirms the City of Rock Hill Zoning commission's issuing of a permit to New Hope Carolinas allowing it to operate an institution to care for emotionally handicapped children."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Short's temperament is and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Short had a good reputation in the community and was well-respected by the attorneys in the area. The Committee also found that Judge Short treats all with respect and dignity and, according to local attorneys, has improved tremendously over the years in the area of judicial temperament.

Judge Short is married to Linda H. Short. He has two children: Lindy Lee Short Blanks (School teacher, age 27); Melanie Lynne Short (Student, age 23). His wife, Linda H. Short, is a South Carolina State Senator.

Judge Short reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Chester County Bar Association;
(c)   American Bar Association;
(d)   American Judicature Society;
(e)   American Judges Association;
(f)   South Carolina Association of Circuit Judges-Vice President.

Judge Short provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Purity Presbyterian Church
- Sunday School Teacher
- Board of Deacons, Former
- Elder, Former;
(b)   Chester Sertoma Club, Life Member;
(c)   Chester Shrine Club;
(d)   Chester Masonic Lodge;
(e)   American Legion;
(f)   Presbyterian College, Board of Visitors, Former.

Judge Short provided "[w]hile I was practicing law, I had the pleasure to serve and to gain valuable experience on the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Woods meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Family Court.

Mr. Woods was born on January 13, 1945. He is 53 years old and a resident of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Mr. Woods provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1970.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Woods.

Mr. Woods 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. Woods reported that he has made no campaign expenditures.

Mr. Woods 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. Woods 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. Woods to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mr. Woods reported that he has participated in over 100 hours of CLE courses during the past five years including a number of Family Law oriented courses. In 1995, he completed the Divorce Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution training and is a South Carolina Certified Family Court Mediator.

Mr. Woods reported that he has appeared before numerous college and high school classes to talk on various aspects of the law and its practice. He also assisted in teaching a high school law course sponsored by the York County Bar Association.

Mr. Woods reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Woods did not reveal any evidence of criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of any founded complaints or grievances made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Woods did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Woods has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Woods 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. Woods reported that his father's firm is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell because it has represented a clientele who were not exposed to Martindale-Hubbell and felt that listing was not important to the practice but rather relied solely on its reputation.

Mr. Woods reported that he served as a Captain in the United States Army Reserve, Inactive Reserve from Aug. 1967 to 1975. He received an Honorable Discharge.

Mr. Woods reported that he was appointed by County Council to the York County Rural Fire Commission from 1972 to 1982. Mr. Woods reported that he was elected to the Rock Hill City Council from 1982 to 1994. Mr. Woods reported that he was appointed by the Governor to the York County Natural Gas Authority in 1995 and continues to serve in that position.

(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Woods appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mr. Woods appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Mr. Woods was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Woods reported that he joined his father's law practice on January 2, 1971, and they formed a partnership named Woods & Woods. This partnership has continued through the present although his father semi-retired in 1995 and is now

Mr. Woods reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:     Infrequent, less than 2% including Bankruptcy
(b)   State:       Family Court on a weekly basis; General Sessions

during each term; Common Pleas--Jury, between 3

and 5 times per year; Common Pleas--Non

Jury/Master-in-Equity, 10 to 15 times per year;

Magistrate's Court averages twice per month
(c)   Other:       Municipal Court on a monthly basis

Mr. Woods reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       50%
(b)   Criminal:     15%
(c)   Domestic:   25%

Mr. Woods reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:       10%
(b)   Non-jury:   90%, including Family Court

Mr. Woods provided that he most often served as sole counsel in these matters.

The following is Mr. Woods' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   June Johnson and Ruthe Ann Mason d/b/a A & J Nursing Service, v. Service Management, Inc., 459 S.E.2d 900, 319 S.C. 165, (S.C.App. 1995). This case established that executions are required to collect a debt under the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules apply to all matters and shortcuts will not be rewarded. The Appellant was successful and the decision of the lower Court was reversed;
(b)   Pete A. Demas v. Sheila Burkett Demas, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Unpublished Op. No. 97-UP-296, heard Apr. 9, 1997, Filed May 8, 1997, Case No. 94-DR-12-559, Supreme Court Docket No. 96-

The following are civil appeals that Mr. Woods has personally handled:
(a)   Pete A. Demas v. Sheila Burkett Demas, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Unpublished Op. No. 97-UP-296, heard Apr. 9, 1997, filed May 8, 1997, Case No. 94-DR-12-559, Supreme Court Docket No. 96-900;
(b)   Stephen D. Walker, Appellant, v. Karen Allman Walker, Respondent, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Trial Court Case No. 93-DR-46-694. Dismissed after settlement by Order dated May 15, 1997.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Woods' temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found that Mr. Woods was qualified. The Citizens Committee did find that Mr. Woods has limited family court experience. Mr. Woods discussed in detail the breadth of his family court experience during his screening. The Commission expressed no concerns with regard to Mr. Woods' family court experience. The Commission did find Mr. Woods to possess great integrity and temperament and stated that he would be an asset to the Family Court bench.

Mr. Woods is married to Gale Teaster-Woods. He does not have any children.

Mr. Woods reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   York County Bar Association (Past President, Past Treasurer).

Mr. Woods provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Central Carolina Citizens Forum, (President);
(b)   Central Carolina Choices Steering Committee;
(c)   Rock Hill Economic Development Corporation, (Past Chairman);
(d)   Rock Hill Kiwanis Club, (Community Service Director for past 2 years);
(e)   Rock Hill Arts Council, (Director, Treasurer, Vice President, current President);
(f)   Brigadier Foundation, The Citadel, (Past President);
(g)   The Citadel Alumni Association, (Past Director, Life Member, Past member of the Executive Committee);
(h)   Oakland Avenue Presbyterian Church, (Member, Deacon).

Mr. Woods provided that he has no information which would negatively affect his candidacy and believes his letters of recommendation speak for themselves.

The following persons were found qualified:
Carol Connor               Court of Appeals, Seat 1
William L. Howard         Court of Appeals, Seat 2
Paul E. Short, Jr.             Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1

Respectfully submitted,
Senator Glenn F. McConnell   Representative F.G. Delleney, Jr.
Senator Edward E. Saleeby   Senator Thomas L. Moore
Representative Wm. Douglas Smith   Representative Ralph W. Canty
Dean Harry M. Lightsey, Jr.   Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester   Richard S. Fisher, Esquire

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

S. 38 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Passailaigue, O'Dell, Elliott, Leventis, Wilson and Branton: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO NAME THE BRIDGE TO BE BUILT REPLACING THE JOHN P. GRACE BRIDGE AND THE SILAS N. PEARMAN BRIDGE IN CHARLESTON COUNTY THE "ARTHUR RAVENEL, JR. BRIDGE" AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHALL ERECT SUCH SIGNS AS APPROPRIATE TO DESIGNATE AND NAME THE NEW BRIDGE OVER THE COOPER RIVER AS THE "ARTHUR RAVENEL, JR. BRIDGE".

(By prior motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent)

At 11:15 A.M., on motion of Senator JACKSON, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, January 26, 1999, at 12:00 Noon.

This web page was last updated on Friday, June 26, 2009 at 9:43 A.M.