Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 10:00 a.m.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by Rep. M. HINES as follows:
Our Father, who watches over us, grant us thy blessings as we end our labors here for the week. Keep us safe as we return to our homes and our families. Let each of us know that we have done and given our best in the good work of our offices and that our State is better now than when we came here. Grant us the foresight to help our citizens according to their needs and to build upon the work and the fellowship we have shared here. Have mercy upon us and give us the strength and wisdom to guide us through the darkness. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. KNOTTS, on behalf of the Lexington Delegation, moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of former Representative Jarvis Klapman, which was agreed to.
The following was received:
TO: The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM: Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
DATE: January 11, 2001
In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.
Respectfully submitted,
Senator Glenn F. McConnell
Representative F.G. Delleney, Jr.
Richard S. Fisher, Esquire
Professor John P. Freeman
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Senator Edward E. Saleeby
Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Representative William Douglas Smith
Date Draft Report Issued: Thursday, January 11, 2001
Date and Time
Final Report Issued: 12:00 noon on Tuesday, January 16, 2001
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 operates under the law which went into effect July 1, 1997, and which 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 seats in which more than three candidates seek office, 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 in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.
The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experience (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for varied organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.
The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; physical health; mental health; and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1) survey of the bench and bar;
(2) SLED and FBI investigation;
(3) credit investigation;
(4) grievance investigation;
(5) study of application materials;
(6) verification of ethics compliance;
(7) search of newspaper articles;
(8) conflict of interest investigation;
(9) court schedule study;
(10) study of appellate record;
(11) court observation; and
(12) investigation of complaints.
While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact on a candidate's fitness for judicial service.
The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.
This year, routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests were administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the canons, etc. is his completed and sworn questionnaire.
Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
Staff interviews were expanded to cover all issues related to candidate's qualification for election. The Staff then prepared a memorandum for each candidate summarizing the results of staff interviews, highlighting any staff concerns, and providing the score results, bench/bar survey results, and a copy of the candidate's completed ethics questionnaire. This memorandum was forwarded (with all relevant candidate information) to Commission members in advance of the scheduled public hearing date. Commission members reviewed these materials and excused some candidates from appearing at a public hearing pursuant to S.C. Code Section 2-19-40, which allows a candidate to be exempt from public hearing when:
1) there is no known opposition;
2) there appears to be no substantial reason for having a public hearing; and
3) a majority of the Commission determines that a public hearing is unnecessary.
This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. Within this screening cycle, the Commission opted to waive, under the provisions of S.C. Code Section 2-19-40, public hearings for the following candidates:
The Honorable M. Duane Shuler, Judge of the Court of Appeals, Seat 3;
The Honorable C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., Judge of the Court of Appeals, Seat 4;
The Honorable J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1;
The Honorable J. Derham Cole, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1;
The Honorable Marion D. Myers, Judge of the Family Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2;
The Honorable R. Wright Turbeville, Judge of the Family Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 3;
The Honorable Jamie Lee Murdock, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2;
The Honorable Leslie K. Riddle, Judge of the Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2;
The Honorable Rolly W. Jacobs, Judge of the Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3;
The Honorable Georgia V. Anderson, Judge of the Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1;
The Honorable James F. Fraley, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2;
The Honorable Joseph W. McGowan III, Judge of the Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1;
The Honorable Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3;
The Honorable Paul W. Garfinkel, Judge of the Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2;
The Honorable Wayne M. Creech, Judge of the Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4;
The Honorable Tommy B. Edwards, Judge of the Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3;
The Honorable Richard W. Chewning III, Judge of the Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 3;
The Honorable Mary E. Buchan, Judge of the Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1;
The Honorable A. Eugene Morehead III, Judge of the Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2;
The Honorable Stephen S. Bartlett, Judge of the Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1;
The Honorable R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2;
The Honorable Gerald C. Smoak, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1;
The Honorable Robert S. Armstrong, Judge of the Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3;
The Honorable H.E. Bonnoitt, Jr., Judge of the Family Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1;
The Honorable Henry T. Woods, Judge of the Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2; and
The Honorable Ralph King Anderson III, Judge of the Administrative Law Judge Division, Seat 6.
The Commission held public hearings for the following candidates:
Anne Gué Jones, Randall E. McGee, and Thomas R. Sims, candidates for Judge of the Family Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 1; The Honorable Agnes Dale Moore Gable, candidate for Judge of the Family Court for the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat 2; Brooks P. Goldsmith, candidate for Judge of the Family Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1; and The Honorable Barry W. Knobel, Judge of the Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1.
As stated previously, the Commission's determination to hold a public hearing on a candidate does not indicate any lack of qualification on a candidate's part but is, instead, recognition of:
1) the candidate's not having been previously screened by the Commission for the position sought;
2) the filing of an affidavit of complaint against the candidate pursuant to S.C. Code Section 2-19-30;
3) the candidate's having opposition; or
4) the need for the Commission to probe an issue in the context of a public hearing.
The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision.
This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court, the Family Court, and the Administrative Law Judge Division.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Anderson was born on July 17, 1952. She is 48 years old and is a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Anderson 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 1978.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.
Judge Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Anderson reported that she will not make any campaign expenditures in excess of $100.
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson 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 Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Anderson described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"01/22/99 Family Law Section- Midyear Meeting;
03/05/99 Family Court Seminar;
05/19/99 Family Court Judges Conference;
08/19/99 Judicial Conference;
12/03/99 Bench/Bar Conference;
01/09/98 Seminar of Circuit and Family Court Judges-Admin. Purposes;
01/23/98 Family law Midyear Meeting;
05/21/98 Family Court Judges Conference;
08/20/98 Judicial Conference;
11/06/98 Family Court Bench/Bar
12/11/98 Seminar for Chief Judges for Adm. Purposes
01/03/97 Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes;
03/06/97 Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;
06/27/97 Seminar of Chief Judges for Circuit and Family Court;
08/08/97 Family Court Pointers;
08/21/97 Judicial Conference;
12/05/97 Family Court Bench/Bar Update;
03/29/96 Domestic Violence;
06/29/96 Family Court Judges Conference;
08/08/96 1996 Annual Convention;
08/22/96 Judicial Conference;
06/12/95 Orientation School for Family Court Judges;
06/21/95 Family Court Judges' Conference;
08/24/95 Judicial Conference;
11/17/95 Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar."
Judge Anderson reported that she has been a guest panel member/lecturer at a criminal domestic violence conference on March 29, 1996.
Judge Anderson reported that she has not published any books or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson 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 Anderson reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
Judge Anderson reported the following legal experience:
"Law Clerk - Fifth Circuit Solicitor-1976-1978
Paralegal/Secretary Cummings & Smith - Sep-Nov 1978
Assistant Public Defender, Spartanburg County - Nov 1978-Sep 1983
Assistant Solicitor, Spartanburg County - Sep 1983-Oct 1983
Spartanburg County Magistrate-Oct 1983-Jun 1995
Family Court Judge, Seventh Circuit - Jul 1, 1995-Present."
Judge Anderson reported that she has held the following judicial offices:
"Appointed Spartanburg County Magistrate Court, 1983-1995;
Elected by Legislature Family Court Term July 1, 1995-June 30, 2001."
Judge Anderson reported that her five most significant orders or opinions were:
"(a) 98-DR-42-3583, Schwartz vs. Schwartz;
(b) 96-DR-42-4045, Ciacelli vs. Ciacelli;
(c) 96-DR-42-2393, Rollins vs. Rollins;
(d) 96-DR-42-2743, DSS vs. Leonhardt;
(e) 94-DR-42-3907, West vs. West Unpb. Op. 98-UP-001."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found that "Judge Anderson meets if not exceeds all of the requirements of the evaluative criteria."
Judge Anderson is married to David Franklin Anderson. She has three children: Lauren Carole Anderson, age 19; Donna Kate Anderson, age 16; and David Barnes Anderson, age 12.
Judge Anderson reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Spartanburg County Bar Association;
(b) S.C. Bar Association."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge in the Administrative Law Judge Division.
Judge Anderson was born on October 13, 1959. He is 41 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Anderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.
Judge Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Anderson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures in seeking this office.
Judge Anderson testified he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Anderson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Anderson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"During my service as a S.C. Assistant Attorney General, I focused my continuing legal education on trial advocacy, criminal law and administrative law. Since being elected an Administrative Law Judge, I have focused on administrative law, procedure and evidence."
Judge Anderson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"A. S.C. CLE - "Hiring and Firing" (Lectured on employment law);
B. S.C. CLE - "Ethics Act" (Lectured on the Ethics Act);
C. Supreme Court Staff - Lectured on the Ethics Act;
D. Bridge the Gap - Administrative Law."
Judge Anderson reported that he has published the following:
"A. "A Survey on Attributes Considered Important for Presidential Candidates," Carolina Undergraduate Sociology Symposium, April 17, 1980.
B. "An Overview of Practice and Procedure Before the Administrative Law Judge Division," South Carolina Trial Lawyer, Summer 1996."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Anderson reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Anderson reported that he was appointed Assistant Attorney General in 1985, and that he served in that capacity until January 1995.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.
Judge Anderson described his legal experience as follows:
"I began my legal career at the South Carolina Attorney General's Office. My initial responsibilities at the AG's office were the extradition functions in the Criminal Division. Afterwards, I was transferred to the Criminal Prosecution Section, where I prosecuted criminal cases, as well as maintained my extradition duties. While in the Prosecution Section, I was also assigned the position as Counsel to the State Ethics Commission.
With the passage of the Statewide Grand Jury Act, I occupied two offices. One was located in the Prosecution Section while the other was in the Grand Jury Section. Once the Grand Jury was firmly established, I returned to the Government and Civil Litigation Division/Prosecution Section. There I resumed all of my original duties with the addition of the following:
Committee Attorney for the State Employee Grievance Committee;
Prosecutor for the Engineering and Land Surveyor's Board; and
Medical Board Prosecutions, Attorney General Opinions and Criminal Appeals.
During my career at the AG's office I prosecuted numerous criminal cases of all types and handled a wide variety of civil litigation."
Judge Anderson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) federal: Infrequently;
(b) state: 20 or more times a year."
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) civil: 75%;
(b) criminal: 25%;
(c) domestic: none."
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) jury: 25%;
(b) non-jury: 75%."
Judge Anderson provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Anderson's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) State v. Dwight L. Bennett - This was a felony DUI case in which the victim lost the baby she was carrying and suffered horrible injuries. Although the defendant was convicted, this case was used as a legislative example as the need to increase the maximum felony DUI punishment.
(b) Georgia v. Richard Daniel Starrett, a'ffd. Richard Daniel Starrett v. William C. Wallace, - Starrett was convicted of several crimes in South Carolina. Afterwards, Georgia sought his extradition in an attempt to convict him under the death penalty. Starrett's challenge to the Attorney General's Office authority to hold extradition hearings was denied.
(c) State v. Michael Goings - Goings was a notorious City of Cayce police officer charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.
(d) State v. Herbert Pearson and Terrance Singleton - The Defendants in this case were accomplices in the armed robbery, attempted murder and murder of attendants at a gas station in Sumter, S.C.
(e) State v. William Keith Victor - After the Defendant was convicted of murder and kidnaping, he was given the death penalty. His case was later reversed on appeal and the prosecution was assumed by me. The prosecution, under difficult circumstances, resulted in the Defendant's plea to murder and the aggravating circumstance of kidnaping."
The following is Judge Anderson's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Bergin Moses Mosteller v. James R. Metts, S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided.
(b) Dennis G. Mitchell v. State of S.C., S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided.
(c) Ex Parte, Bobby M. Stichert v. Carroll Heath, S.C. Supreme Court, Decided August 29, 1985 - 286 S.C. 456, 334 S.E.2d 282 286 S.C. 456
(d) Patrick C. Lynn, et al. v. State of S.C., Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided.
(e) Paul David Tasker v. M.L. Brown, Jr., S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided."
Judge Anderson describes his current judicial position as follows:
"I was elected by the General Assembly to serve as an Administrative Law Judge, February 1, 1995 and have been serving continuously since that date.
Administrative Law Judges preside over hearings, render decisions and issue orders in a broad range of administrative cases involving governmental agencies and private parties. The jurisdiction of the Division includes cases involving health, childcare, environmental, natural resource, insurance, alcoholic beverage, and tax issues, as well as other licensing matters. Additionally, pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, Op. No. 24995 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed February 14, 2000) (Shearhouse Adv. Sh. No. 6 at 21), 2000 WL 156547, the Division now hears appeals from final decisions of the Department of Corrections in "non-collateral" matters, i.e., matters in which an inmate does not challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. The ALJs also possess certain equitable and contempt powers."
Judge Anderson listed five of his most significant orders or opinions as follows:
"(a) Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 99-ALJ-07-0290-CC;
(b) Democratic Reform at Big Creek, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, et al., 98-ALJ-07-0556-CC;
(c) South Carolina Department of Revenue, In Re: Proposed Regulation #117.190, 97-ALJ-17-0095-RH;
(d) Edgemoor Community Action Association, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and J. Bruce Collins, 95-ALJ-07-0728-CC;
(e) United States Army Training Center and Fort Jackson v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 95-ALJ-07-0202-CC."
Judge Anderson provided that he was an unsuccessful candidate for the following judicial offices:
"Administrative Law Judge, Seat 3 (February 23, 1994)
Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 3 (May 24, 2000); I was found qualified and nominated but withdrew prior to election."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Anderson was "a highly respected judge." The committee wholeheartedly recommended Judge Anderson for reelection.
Judge Anderson is married to Linda Corley Anderson.
Judge Anderson reported that he was a member of the South Carolina Bar, effective November 1984.
Judge Anderson provided that he was a member of Shandon Baptist Church and a Sunday school teacher.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Armstrong meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Armstrong was born on August 12, 1956. He is 44 years old and is a resident of Seabrook, South Carolina. Judge Armstrong provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Armstrong.
Judge Armstrong 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 Armstrong reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Armstrong 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 Armstrong 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 Armstrong to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Armstrong described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"In addition to the mandatory Continuing Legal Education Seminars that I am required to attend as a judge, I recently completed a one-week course at the National Judicial College on current issues in family law."
Judge Armstrong reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"November 1998, Bench-Bar CLE in Columbia - issues on juvenile crime;
October 1998, Solicitor's Convention on Hilton Head Island - issues on juvenile crime."
Judge Armstrong reported that he has published the following:
"Up From the Lowcountry, Who is this New Kid on the Block?" Robert S. Armstrong, Fall issue, 1983, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Bulletin.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Armstrong did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Armstrong did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Armstrong has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Armstrong 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 Armstrong reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Armstrong gave the following account of his public service experience:
"(a) Assistant Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1985-1990;
(b) Deputy Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1990-1995."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Armstrong appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Armstrong appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Armstrong was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
Judge Armstrong provided the following account of his legal experience:
"(a) Law Clerk-The Honorable William T. Howell, 1982 - 1983;
(b) Public Defender for Allendale, Hampton, and Jasper Counties, 1983 - 1985, Criminal;
(c) Assistant Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, 1985 - 1990, Criminal;
(d) Deputy Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, 1990 - 1995, Criminal;
(e) Sole Practitioner, 1995 - 1998, general practice of law;
(f) Judge, May 6, 1998 - present."
The following is Judge Armstrong's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Beauchamp v. Beauchamp, 98-DR-32-0693;
(b) Graham v. Graham, 97-DR-32-2230;
(c) Bakala v. Bakala, 98-DR-07-0687;
(d) Fields v. Willis, 98-DR-26-1366;
(e) Taylor v. Taylor, 98-DR-07-1573; 2000-UP-311."
Judge Armstrong further provided:
"I ran for an At-Large Circuit Court Judge's Seat against Markley Dennis, Jr., in February 1994. I ran for Seat 12, At-Large Circuit Court in February 1996. I dropped out of each race when it appeared that I did not have enough votes to win. I ran for Seat 1, At-Large Circuit Court in May 1996. The Honorable Paula Thomas was elected to the court in that race."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Armstrong's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Armstrong is a "well qualified and highly respected candidate whose service and dedication to the State of South Carolina is beyond reproach." The committee wholeheartedly approved of Judge Armstrong's reelection.
Judge Armstrong is not married.
Judge Armstrong reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) Beaufort County Bar."
Judge Armstrong provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) USC Alumni;
(b) Beaufort YMCA."
Judge Armstrong reported the following with regard to his service to the state:
"(a) Chief Administrative Judge, Family Court, 14th Judicial Circuit, 1999-2000;
(b) Regional Vice-President, South Carolina Family Court Judges Association, 1999-Present;
(c) Appointed by the Chief Justice to help implement Rule 608, South Carolina Appellate Court Rules in the 14th Judicial Circuit."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Bartlett meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Bartlett was born on April 23, 1952. He is 47 years old and is a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Bartlett provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Bartlett.
Judge Bartlett 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 Bartlett reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Bartlett 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 Bartlett 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 Bartlett to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Bartlett described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) I have exceeded JCLE requirements. I have attended all mandatory JCLE seminars.
(b) I have been on the General Faculty of the National Judicial College where I have taught at least one course each year for the last five years."
Judge Bartlett reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I have taught at the National Judicial College and at the Judges Conference for court administration in 1999."
Judge Bartlett reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Bartlett did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Bartlett did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Bartlett has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Bartlett 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 Bartlett reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Bartlett appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Bartlett appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Bartlett was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
Judge Bartlett reported the following legal experience:
"(a) Assistant City Attorney, City of Greenville, 1976;
(b) Assistant Circuit Solicitor, Greenville County, 1976 to 1980;
(c) Municipal Court Judge, City of Greenville, 1980 to 1996;
(d) Family Court Judge, Greenville County, 1996 to Present."
Judge Bartlett reported that he has held the following judicial offices:
"(a) Family Court Judge, Elected May 1996 to Present;
(b) Municipal Court Judge, Appointed December 1980 to 1996."
Judge Bartlett provided the following list of significant orders or opinions:
"(a) SCDSS v. Sprunger, et al. In The Interest Of: child under the age of 18; SCDSS v. Bryant, et al. In The Interest Of: child under the age of 18;
(b) In the Interest of: children under the age of seventeen years;
(c) Maureen O'Hara v. D. William O'Hara;
(d) Dana E. Simmons v. Roger Carl Simmons;
(e) Rosemary U. Creech v. John G. Creech."
Judge Bartlett provided that:
"I was a candidate for family court judge in the year preceding my election as family court judge. I withdrew and resubmitted my name in a following election."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Bartlett's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found that "Judge Bartlett meets if not exceeds all of the requirements of the evaluative criteria."
Judge Bartlett is married to Elizabeth Anthony Bartlett. He has one child, Stephen Wyman Bartlett, age 19, student.
Judge Bartlett reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a) South Carolina Bar since 1976;
(b) National Judicial College General Faculty since 1986.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Bonnoitt meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Bonnoitt was born on July 2, 1943. He is 57 years old and a resident of Georgetown, South Carolina. Judge Bonnoitt 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 Bonnoitt.
Judge Bonnoitt 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 Bonnoitt reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Bonnoitt 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 Bonnoitt 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 Bonnoitt to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Bonnoitt described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) 1999 - 24.75 hrs. JCLE completed;
(b) 1998 - 43.50 hrs. JCLE completed;
(c) 1997 - 25.25 hrs. JCLE completed;
(d) 1996 - 30.75 hrs. JCLE completed;
(e) 1995 - 24.75 hrs. JCLE completed."
Judge Bonnoitt reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"Made presentation to Family Court Judges on sentencing options in juvenile proceedings during CLE portion of Family Court Judges Conference in May 1999. Have presented twice on court procedures at Administrative Judges training in Columbia in 1997 and 1998."
Judge Bonnoitt reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Bonnoitt did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Bonnoitt did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Bonnoitt has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Bonnoitt 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 Bonnoitt reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Bonnoitt reported the following military service:
"USN (1965-1969), Lt., 693660/1100, Resigned Commission;
USNR (1969-78), LCDR, 693660/1105, Resigned Commission."
Judge Bonnoitt reported that he served in the following public offices:
"(a) Chairman, Georgetown City Board of Zoning Adjustments (1983-85) - appointed by City Council;
(b) Mayor, City of Georgetown (1986-91) - elected by city electors;
(c) Vice-President (1988-91)/President (1991), Municipal Association of South Carolina - elected by Association Board of Directors."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Bonnoitt appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Bonnoitt appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Bonnoitt was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Judge Bonnoitt reported the following legal experience:
"(a) Sole Practitioner (1973-1987) - General Practice;
(b) Bonnoitt & Mitchum (1987-1991) - General Practice;
(c) Family Court Judge (1991-present)."
Judge Bonnoitt provided the following as five of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Charles Kenneth Cooper v. Betty J. White Cooper, (97 DR40 0178) heard December 1999. Understand the case is on appeal. No appellate decision at this time.
(b) Victoria K. Clark v. Glen Harrison Davis, (98 DR26 212) heard August 1998. Do not know if case is on appeal. No appellate decision at this time.
(c) Arlene A. Paasch v. Christopher S. Paasch and Betty J. Housman and Christopher S. Paasch v. Estate of Dennis J. Alba, André Alba, Michael Kovnick and Paula Kovnick, (97 DR26 281) heard August 1997. Citation on Appeal is 2000-UP-033.
(d) Amy Costanzo Kline v. Paul Burton Kline, (96 DR26 1091) heard December 1996, January 1997, and March 1997. Citation on Appeal is 99-UP-410.
(e) Daryl J. Crawford v. Cheryl Crawford, (95 DR26 3448) heard August 1996. Citation on Appeal is 99-UP-338."
Judge Bonnoitt reported that he ran unsuccessfully for S.C. House of Representatives Seat 107 in 1974.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Bonnoitt's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Bonnoitt was qualified for service on the Family Court bench. The committee recommended and approved of Judge Bonnoitt's reelection without reservation.
Judge Bonnoitt is married to Kay McCormac Bonnoitt. He has two children: H.E. Bonnoitt III, age 25, Asst. Preparator, Columbia Museum of Art; and John M. Bonnoitt, age 24, Customer Relations at Whitash Furniture Co.
Judge Bonnoitt reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) S.C. Bar Association;
(b) Georgetown County Bar Association, serving as secretary (1979-81) and President (1989-90)."
Judge Bonnoitt provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Georgetown Breakfast Rotary;
(b) V.F.W. Post 6444;
(c) Winyah Indigo Society;
(d) Ribbon Club;
(e) Friends of the Library;
(f) Friends of the Kaminski House;
(g) Brookgreen Gardens;
(h) AARP;
(i) Columbia Museum of Art;
(j) Nature Conservancy."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Buchan meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Buchan was born on September 26, 1952. She is 48 years old and is a resident of Marion, South Carolina. Judge Buchan provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Buchan.
Judge Buchan 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 Buchan reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Buchan 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 Buchan 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 Buchan to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Buchan described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"Seminars offered by the South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education."
Judge Buchan reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) Speaker, local and state Volunteer Guardian ad Litem programs;
(b) Speaker, Post-trial Motions in Juvenile Hearings, Family Court Judges' Annual Meeting;
(c) Speaker, Race and Gender-Sensitive Issues, Family Court Judges' Annual Meeting;
(d) Co-panelist, Valuation of a Professional Practice, SCTLA;
(e) Speaker, Scheduling Conflicts and Resolutions, Chief Judges Seminar;
(f) Co-panelist, Joint Custody Considerations, SC Bar Winter Meeting;
(g) Speaker, Family Court Appointments, Bridge the Gap;
(h) Facilitator, Family Court Judges' Annual Meeting;
(i) Speaker, Computer Uses, Family Court Judges' Annual Meeting."
Judge Buchan reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Buchan has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Buchan 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 Buchan reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Buchan appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Buchan appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Buchan was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.
Judge Buchan described her legal experience as follows:
"For a brief period after my law school graduation, I continued to clerk for Kennedy, Price, Kosko & Coffas, Attorneys. From my admission to the bar until March 1982, I worked for Timothy G. Quinn in his general practice in Columbia and as manager of his Marion office. In March 1982, I began practicing with Edward W. Whittington, Jr. in Mullins, South Carolina, under the name of Whittington & Buchan, Attorneys. My practice was always primarily domestic, although I also handled some civil cases, real estate matters and commercial matters. In May 1992, I was appointed and then elected to the Family Court bench."
Judge Buchan reported that she was appointed to Seat 1 on the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Family Court on May 6, 1992, and that she was elected to this seat on May 27, 1992.
She further reported, "Family Court is of limited jurisdiction and handles divorces and separate support and maintenance actions and the issues related to those actions, custody and visitation actions, juvenile cases, child support cases, abuse and neglect cases, adoptions, name changes and abortion cases."
Judge Buchan reported that her five most significant orders or opinions are:
"(a) Horry County Department of Social Services v. Hedge, 2000-UP-244, Ct. App. 2000;
(b) Eagerton v. Eagerton, 2000-UP-515, Ct. App. 2000; (c)
(d) Broome v. Broome, 97-UP-295, Ct. App.1997; (e)
(d) Poston v. Poston, 96-UP-431, 502 S.E.2d 86, 331 SC 106 (SC 1998);
(e) Dixon v. Dixon, 519 S.E.2d 357, 336 SC 260 (Ct. App. 1999)."
Regarding unsuccessful candidacies, Judge Buchan reported, "I offered for the Court of Appeals unsuccessfully in November 1999. I was found qualified by the screening committee but was not nominated."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Buchan's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Buchan to be qualified for reelection to the Family Court bench. The committee recommended and approved of Judge Buchan's reelection without reservation.
Judge Buchan is married to Ernest McCray Graham, Jr. She has three children: David M. Graham (step-son), age 29, medical illustrator; Becky Graham (step-daughter), age 25, receptionist/secretary; and Alison Graham (daughter), age 13, student.
Judge Buchan reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) Family Court Judges Association;
(c) National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges."
Judge Buchan provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Marion Presbyterian Church: Sunday school teacher, former deacon, elder."
Judge Buchan additionally reported, "I have served as a Family Court judge for eight years and believe that I have the intelligence, temperament and ability to continue to do so."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Chewning meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Chewning was born on February 12, 1942. He is 58 years old and is a resident of Lexington, South Carolina. Judge Chewning provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1972.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Chewning.
Judge Chewning 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 Chewning reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Chewning 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 Chewning 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 Chewning to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Chewning described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
1999:
Jan 1 Family Law Section-Midyear Mtg, SCB, 3.00
May 19 Family Court Judges Conference, 5.25
Aug 5 Annual Convention, SCTLA, 12.00
Aug 19 Judicial Conference, SCCA, 7.25
Dec 3 SC Family Court Bench Bar, 6.00
1998:
Jan 9 Seminar of Circuit and Family Court Judges for Admin Purposes, SCCA, 5.25
Jan 23 Family Law-Midyear Meeting, 3.00
May 21 Family Court Judges Conference, SCCA, 6.00
Aug 13 Annual Convention, SCTLA, 14.50
Aug 20 Judicial Conference, SCCA, 8.25
1997:
Jan 3 Seminar for Chief Judges of the Family Court for Admin Purposes, SCCA, 5.75
Aug 21 Judicial Conference, SCCA, 8.00
Aug 8 Annual Convention, SCTLA, 12.00
Dec 6 Family Court Bench/Bar Update, SCTLA, 6.00
1996:
Jun 2 Annual Mtg: Trial & Appellate Advocacy Section, SCB, 3.00
Jun 3 Annual Mtg: Family Law Section/SC Bankruptcy Lawyers, SCB, 3.00
1995:
Jun 21 SC Family Court Judges' Conference, SCCFC, 6.25
Aug 24 Judicial Conference, SCCA, 8.00
Sep 29 S.C. Tort Law Update, A Circuit Court Bench/Bar Seminar, SBA 6.00
Judge Chewning reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Chewning reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Chewning did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Chewning did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Chewning has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Chewning 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 Chewning reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Chewning appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Chewning appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Chewning was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1972.
Judge Chewning provided the following account of his legal experience:
"Having clerked for a law firm in Columbia, South Carolina while I was attending law school and upon graduation being offered a job, I remained there for approximately nine (9) months (Kennedy and Price). During this almost three (3) year period of time I became well trained in real estate work including abstracting titles, setting up subdivisions for developer, closing loans and etc. I also handled collections, (set up a firm procedure and over saw it with secretarial help), foreclosures, wills, estates, helped investigate and set up files regarding bodily injury, assisted in some defense work and adoptions. My first exposure to the practice of law was basically a general one.
In 1973, I opened my own practice of law in West Columbia, South Carolina (my home) and began a general practice of law primarily in Richland and Lexington Counties. It was definitely a general practice which involved criminal, wills, estates, real estate, civil cases (primarily accident claims), defense of individuals being sued, family court (divorces, adoptions, and serving as guardian ad litem), bankruptcy, foreclosures, workmen compensation, and work in magistrate court and city traffic court.
In 1977, Nikki G. Setzler, E. Danny Scott and I joined our three (3) solo practices into the firm of Setzler, Chewning, and Scott, P.A. We grew from three (3) attorneys and two (2) secretaries, to six (6) attorneys, six (6) secretaries, full time bookkeeper, law clerk and abstractor.
During the 70's, because Lexington County did not have a standing Master-in-Equity and this type work was steadily increasing, many attorneys agreed for me to serve as Special Referee. This particular area grew and for many years approximately 50% of my annual income came from serving as Special Referee. This primarily dealt with foreclosures but included many other actions such as property line disputes, complex corporate and business disputes.
1986 referred over 95 cases
1987 referred over 115 cases
1988 referred over 130 cases
1989 referred over 100 cases
These were the latest records I could find regarding cases referred to me as Special Referee immediately prior to Lexington County providing a full-time Master-in-Equity in July 1989.
Through the middle years of my practice, Special Referee work and foreclosure work were my primary sources of income. I continued doing real estate work, wills and domestic type work. Our firm gradually developed specialty areas in that Mr. Scott primarily handled the real estate and Senator Setzler handled the civil litigation, with me doing the foreclosures, bank work and special referring.
Finally, the County of Lexington set up a full-time Master-in-Equity and I simply redirected my efforts in the other areas of law. During the past ten (10) or twelve (12) years, as the Family Courts began to utilize the GAL (I had always had a special interest in children and worked in this area of the Family Court since law school), I developed a sizable practice in this area.
It is difficult to arrive at exact dates since 1972 regarding areas of practice because of the time span. It is even more difficult because all of the areas of change were slow in developing and ending. An exception is the Special Referee work ceasing abruptly with the appointment of a standing Master-in-Equity.
I have always practiced a general practice of law. In the first years I could effectively cover many areas of law, many different courts in many different counties. I have tried cases (limited number) in Federal Court in my early years of practice.
My main volume area throughout the years were family court, guardian ad litem work, foreclosure work and special referee work.
I also served as the Judge for the City of Cayce from December 1976 to July 1994, handling regular traffic court weekly, preliminary hearings, jury trials, execution of warrants and search warrants, bond hearings and the appeals from this court.
I was appointed by the Supreme Court to serve as the temporary Family Court Judge when our County was without a sitting judge. I cannot recall the date nor can I locate the Order issued by the Supreme Court. It was in the late 70's or early 80's and was only for a week or two. Several attorneys were appointed during the interim when we did not have a judge.
Since July 1, 1994, I have served as a Family Court Judge for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. In that 6 month period of time (July 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994) I presided over approximately 1,594 cases. The following is a general category of the matters brought before me during that time:
Adoption 14
Divorces 304
Motions of Temporary Relief 324
Rule To Show Cause 105
Domestic Abuse 54
DSS cases 118
Juvenile 101
Emergency Hearings 31
State Contempt=child support 181
County Contempt=child support 200
Pretrials 40
Custody 47
Agreements 30
Cases Dismissed 20
College Expenses 1
Paternity Suits 2
Truants 17
Name Change 4
Annulments 1
I have continued to serve as a Family Court Judge from December 31, 1994 to the present."
Judge Chewning reported that he has held the following judicial offices:
"(a) Served as Judge for the City of Cayce from December 1976 to June 30, 1994: Appointed by City Council; regular traffic court once a week every week; jury trials; execution of arrest warrants and search warrants; preliminary hearings and bond hearings.
(b) Served as Special Family Court Judge in Lexington County by Order of the Supreme Court. Cannot locate Order, was in the late 70's or early 80's for one (1) or two (2) week period time.
(c) Served as Special Referee (primarily in Lexington County-have heard cases from other counties at request of attorneys and court) from approximately 1977 to July 1989, referred by Circuit Court.
(d) Served as Family Court Judge full-time from July 1, 1994 to present. Seat Number 3, Eleventh Judicial Circuit. "
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Chewning's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Chewning is "a qualified and highly regarded judge." The committee positively approved of his reelection to the family court bench.
Judge Chewning is married to Ruth Davis Chewning. He has two children: Andrea C. Hurley, age 36, teacher; and Richard W. Chewning, IV, age 35, Deputy Sergeant at Arms for the South Carolina Senate.
Judge Chewning reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Richland County Bar, 1972-1973;
(b) Lexington County Bar, 1973-present; President 1980; Secretary/Treasurer for a number of years prior to 1980;
(c) South Carolina Bar Association, 1972 to present; S.C. Supreme Court Committee for Discipline and Grievances, 1985-1988; House of Delegates, 1990-1992; Judicial Modernization Committee, 1981-1982;
(d) American Bar Association, 1972 to 1994."
Judge Chewning further reported, "I have voluntarily served the South Carolina Bar Pro Bono Program since 1988."
Judge Chewning provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Task Force - Fighting Back Lexington;
(b) U.S.C. Gamecock Club;
(c) U.S.C. Alumni Association;
(d) Newberry College Alumni Association;
(e) Shiloh United Methodist Church;
Sunday School teacher, Church Choir Member, Chairman of the Finance Committee, Member of Administrative Council;
(f) Volunteer Fireman with Hollow Creek Fire Department;
(g) Lexington County Election Commission - Poll Manager, resigned July 1, 1994;
(h) Lexington County Selective Service Board - Chairman, 1982 to July 1, 1994."
Judge Chewning further provided:
"I have done volunteer motivational as well as awareness public speaking to church and school groups in the areas of child abuse and neglect prevention and identification, legal careers, youthful offenses, laws relating to youthful offenders:
South Carolina Supreme Court, Joint Commission on ADR and Rules Subcommittee;
Steering Committee for Lexington County Drug Court Program;
Serving as Judge for the Lexington County Drug Court Program; Governor's Community Youth Council, Chairman 11th Judicial Circuit;
Lexington County Planning Committee for New Judicial and Administrative Center;
Children's Justice Act Task Force, Chairman 11th Judicial Circuit;
Chairman of Church Council at Shiloh United Methodist Church.
I support the Arbitration Program for Juveniles and the Guardian ad Litem Programs by speaking to groups encouraging volunteers to assist in these programs."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cole meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a circuit court judge.
Judge Cole was born on May 27, 1952. He is 48 years old and is a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Cole provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cole.
Judge Cole 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 Cole reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures in seeking this office.
Judge Cole 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 Cole 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 Cole to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Cole described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Annual Judicial Conference;
(b) Annual South Carolina Association of Circuit Court Judges meeting;
(c) Annual Mid-winter meeting of the South Carolina Bar Association;
(d) Annual South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Meeting;
(e) Annual South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association meeting."
Judge Cole reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Cole reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Cole did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cole did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cole has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Cole 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 Cole reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Cole provided that he served in the S.C. House of Representatives from 1987-1992.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Cole appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Cole appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Cole was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Judge Cole reports his legal experience since graduation from law school as follows:
"1977-1984 Assistant Circuit Solicitor, Seventh Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office;
1984-1992 Cole and Taylor Law Firm General Civil and Criminal Trial Practice."
Judge Cole has held the following judicial office:
"1992-present Resident Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, elected February 5, 1992, unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction with the exception of probate, domestic relations, and most juvenile matters."
The following is Judge Cole's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) The State v. Jimmy Clifton Locklair, Opinion Number 25161, Shearhouse Advance Sheets, Filed June 26, 2000;
(b) David C. Rocheville v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections;
(c) The City of Camden v. The Public Service Commission, 335 SC 580, 518 S.E.2d 262 (1999);
(d) First Financial Insurance Co. v. Stacy Huggins, Art Boerke, Township Auditorium, and Richland County, SC;
(e) Chambers Waste Systems of South Carolina, Inc. v. Union County Council."
Judge Cole reported that he was an unsuccessful candidate for Circuit Solicitor, Seventh Judicial Circuit in 1984.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Cole's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found that "Judge Cole meets if not exceeds all of the requirements of the evaluative criteria."
Judge Cole is married to Candice Linn Carlson Cole. He has three children:
Joseph Derham Cole, Jr., age 23, graduate student, law/MIBS; Jonathan Taylor Cole, age 20, college student; and Amanda Carlson Cole, age 14, student.
Judge Cole reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;
(b) Spartanburg County Bar Association;
(c) South Carolina Association of Circuit Court Judges."
Judge Cole provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) The Spartanburg County Historical Society;
(b) The Spartanburg County Arts Partnership;
(c) The Country Club of Spartanburg;
(d) The Bobby Chapman Junior Invitational Tournament Board of Directors;
(e) The South Carolina Association of Circuit Court Judges."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Creech meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Creech was born on July 31, 1951. He is 49 years old and a resident of Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Judge Creech provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Creech.
Judge Creech 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 Creech reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Creech 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 Creech 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 Creech to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Creech described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"04/13/95 Custody & Visitation Decision;
06/03/95 Bar Annual Meeting (Bankruptcy);
06/21/95 SC Conference of Family Judges' Conference;
08/24/95 Judicial Conference;
11/17/95 Marital Litigation Update;
06/26/96 Family Court Judges' Conference;
08/22/96 Judicial Conference;
12/06/96 Family Court Update;
03/06/97 Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;
05/09/97 Family Court Judges' Meeting;
08/21/97 Judicial Conference;
12/02/97 Substance Abuse Treatment- LLC;
12/05/97 Family Court Bench/Bar Update;
01/23/98 Bar Midyear Meeting- Family Law;
03/05/98 Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;
05/21/98 Family Court Judges' Meeting;
08/20/98 Judicial Conference;
01/22/99 Bar Midyear Meeting- Family Law;
05/19/99 Family Court Judges' Meeting;
08/19/99 Judicial Conference;
12/03/99 Family Court Bench/Bar Update;
01/21/00 Bar Midyear Meeting- Family Law."
Judge Creech reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"06/06/95 SC Bar CLE, Bankruptcy;
03/08/96 Law Enforcement and Schools; "A Partnership for Safe Schools;" "Absence of Authority;"
06/--/96 Hugh O'Brien Youth Foundation; SC Leadership Seminar (sat on panel);
08/06-13/96 Berkeley County School District; Parents- Back in control parenting;
06/06/97 Hugh O'Brien Youth Foundation; SC Leadership Seminar (sat on panel);
12/05/97 SC Family Court Bench/Bar Update, "Rules;"
01/15/99 Charleston Family Bar Section, "Effective Advocacy-A Bench Prospective;"
02/25/00 SC Bar CLE- Tips from the Bench "Divorce/Separation Proceedings."
Judge Creech reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Creech did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Creech did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Creech has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Creech 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 Creech reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Creech provided that he was elected to the following public office: "Moncks Corner Town Attorney-November 1981 - March 1987, elected by Town Council."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Creech appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Creech appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Creech was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
Judge Creech provided the following account of his legal experience since his graduation from law school:
"(a) Law Offices of H. N. West, Associate-August 1976-July 1977; Real Estate/ Family Law;
(b) Dennis and Dennis, Associate-July 1977-January 1978; Real Estate/ Family Law/ Criminal/General Civil Litigation;
(c) Dennis, Dennis and Watson, Associate-January 1978-November 1981; Real Estate/ Family Law/ Criminal/ Municipal/ General Civil Litigation;
(d) Watson and Creech, Partner-November 1981-July 1983; Real Estate/ Family Law/ Criminal/ Municipal/ General Civil Litigation;
(e) Watson, Creech and Tiencken, Partner-July 1983-January 1987; Real Estate/ Family Law/ Criminal/ Municipal/ General Civil Litigation;
(f) Watson, Creech, Tiencken and West, Partner-January 1987-March 1987; Real Estate/ Family Law/ Criminal/ Municipal/ General Civil Litigation;
(g) Wayne M. Creech Sole Practitioner-March 1987-September 30, 1988; Real Estate."
Judge Creech provided the following account of his judicial experience:
"South Carolina Family Court- Ninth Judicial Circuit, Berkeley County Resident, Seat # 4; Elected by the S.C. General Assembly April 27, 1988, to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable Warren H. Jolly from October 1, 1988-June 30, 1989; Re-elected May 3, 1989, for term from July 1, 1989-June 30, 1995; Re-elected May 25, 1995, for term from July 1, 1995-June 30, 2001."
The following is Judge Creech's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) SCDSS v. the Father, the Mother and the Step-Father: Case # 88-DR-10-0608. This was the most complex and lengthy trial of my career. It was a child abuse/child custody case. I prepared the trial order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the S.C. Supreme Court.
(b) State v. Annette Moody: Case # 92-JU-10-1738. This is the first S.C. case known in which a legal custodian was found in criminal contempt of court for failing to supervise a juvenile released to the care of the custodian on "home detention". The Criminal contempt sanction imposed was affirmed by the S.C. Supreme Court without comment.
(c) SCDSS v. Angela Miller. This case reflects one of my most significant moments of service since coming to the bench. Through the actions taken, two little girls were protected from being reunited with their chronically abusive mother. They have been adopted by their loving foster parents and at last word were healthy and happy. My decision was upheld by the S.C. Court of Appeals.
(d) SCDSS v. Wilson. This was a very complicated child abuse case in which an infant repeatedly had suffered severe injuries at the hands of a man who was seeking to become her adoptive father. My decision was not appealed. Mr. Wilson is now being prosecuted criminally.
(e) SCDSS v. Walker: Case # 93-DR-10-6189. This case was similar to the Wilson case above because it involved allegations that a prospective adoptive father had injured an infant while in his care. The trial of this case resulted in the "father" being exonerated. The case was not appealed."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Creech's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Creech to be a "well qualified and highly respected judge whose service and dedication to the State of South Carolina is beyond reproach." The committee wholeheartedly approved of Judge Creech's reelection.
Judge Creech is married to Annette Lewis Cook Creech. He has four children: Wayne M. Creech, Jr., age 29, Teacher at McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana; Andrew Wade Creech, age 18, Student at USC, part-time grounds keeper at Mulberry Plantation, Moncks Corner, S.C.; Alex Scott Creech, age 16; and Kelly Elizabeth Creech, age 12.
Judge Creech reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) Berkeley County Bar."
Judge Creech provided that he was a member of the First Baptist Church of Moncks Corner and he teaches Sunday school.
Judge Creech further provided, "I have a wide range of legal problem solving experience. I was in general practice for 11 years prior to my election to the bench. During that time, I served as Town Attorney and Prosecutor for Moncks Corner. I was elected to the bench in 1988 and have held court in (21) of the (46) counties of South Carolina including service as Chief Administrative Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Edwards meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Edwards was born on January 23, 1949. He is 51 years old and is a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Judge Edwards provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Edwards.
Judge Edwards 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 Edwards reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Edwards 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 Edwards 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 Edwards to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Edwards described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Number of hours amassed: 141.75 (28.3 yearly average)
(b) Number of hours carried over annually: 29+
(c) Types of courses: All were CLE's or JCLE's related to Family Law offered via South Carolina Bar."
Judge Edwards reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) Taught course in Juvenile Law at TriCounty Technical College in mid 1980's (basic course for students in Criminal Justice Program);
(b) Taught State Constables' Course at TriCounty Technical College, 1990 (basic criminal procedure regarding arrest, search and seizure, etc.);
(c) Served on panel for CLE on Family Law for S.C. Bar, 1997 (comments on recent developments);
(d) Served on panel for Department of Social Services attorneys and staff, 1998 (comments on revisions in termination of Parental Rights statute);
(e) Served on panel for JCLE, Family Court Judges Conference, 1998 (regarding Pro Se litigation in Family Court);
(f) Presenter, Tenth Annual National Dropout Prevention Network Conference, Detroit, MI, 1998."
Judge Edwards reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Edwards did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Edwards did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Edwards has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Edwards 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 Edwards reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Edwards reported his military service as follows:
"Active Duty: October 1971 to July 1973, 2LT.
Ready Reserve: 1973 to 1985; CAPT.
Present Status: Completed military obligation; Discharge: Honorable."
Judge Edwards provided that he has held the following public office:
"Family Court Judge, July 1, 1991 to present."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Edwards appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Edwards appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Edwards was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
Judge Edwards described his legal experience as follows:
"(a) November 1976 to September 1977: Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA); Attorney assigned to Montana Legal Services, Helena, Montana; Practice involved consumer law and education and domestic relations.
(b) October 1977 to July 1979: Associate with French and Grainey, Ronan, Montana; General practice.
(c) July 1979 to January 1982: Assistant Attorney General, South Carolina Attorney General's Office; Assigned to and represented South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. Practice involved administrative law, prosecution of wildlife and commercial fishing cases, civil litigation in State and Federal Court, appellate practice before Supreme Court of South Carolina.
(d) January 1982 to April 1985: Associate, Larry C. Brandt, PA, Walhalla, SC; General practice with emphasis on real estate, commercial collections, civil litigation.
(e) January 1982 to April 1985: Part-time Assistant Solicitor, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Oconee County; Prosecution of criminal cases in General Sessions Court, prosecution of Juvenile matters in Family Court, representation of Department of Social Services in abuse and neglect cases in Family Court.
(f) April 1985 to 1987: Assistant Solicitor, Tenth Judicial Circuit (Full time); Management of Oconee County Office of Solicitor as well as prosecution responsibilities as set forth in (e) above in Oconee and Anderson Counties.
(g) 1987 to July 1991: Deputy Solicitor, Tenth Judicial Circuit; Same responsibilities as in (f) above plus supervision of attorney and support staff."
Judge Edwards provided that his five most significant orders or opinions are:
"(a) Sonia Glover v. David L. Meggett, 94-DR-10-1241 (Charleston County);
(b) Wanda J. Sams v. James Bryan Weathers, Joseph B. Reynolds, and Kathleen Reynolds, 1994-DR-04-867 (Anderson County) Appellate Review: Unpublished Opinion No. 96-UP-344 (Ct. Appeals);
(c) Tammy Lynn Seymore v. Thomas Eugene Seymore and Talmadge Gilbert Seymore, 1996-DR-04-173 (Anderson County) Appellate Review: Unpublished Opinion No. 98-UP-106 (Ct. Appeals);
(d) David and Betty Moon v. Shirley Ann McKee, 94-DR-04-2221 (Anderson County) Appellate Review: None;
(e) Janette T. Smith v. James Ray Smith, 90-DR-04-1470 (Anderson County) Appellate Review: Unpublished Opinion No. 2000-UP-053 (Ct. Appeals)."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Edwards' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found that "Judge Edwards meets if not exceeds all of the requirements of the evaluative criteria."
Judge Edwards is not married. He has three children: William Harris Edwards, age 22; Caroline Bartlett Edwards, age 17; Benjamin Edwin Harvin Edwards, age 15.
Judge Edwards reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar (no offices held);
(b) Montana Bar (no offices held);
(c) South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges (no offices held)."
Judge Edwards provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Advisory Board, Anderson Boys and Girls Club (no office held);
(b) Governor's Youth Council (Tenth Judicial Circuit), Award: Local Council; Leadership Award, 1998 (on behalf of entire Council)."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Fraley meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Fraley was born on December 5, 1951. He is 49 years old and is a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Fraley provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Fraley.
Judge Fraley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Fraley reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Fraley 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 Fraley testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Fraley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Fraley described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) I have attended various family law seminars sponsored by the SC Bar and others;
(b) I have organized a CLE approved seminar, served as its discussion leader, and lectured on a topic;
(c) I have completed a 40 hour training course for divorce mediation;
(d) I have attended all mandatory judicial seminars since becoming a judge and I have attended seminars at the SCTLA."
Judge Fraley reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I have taught a business law course at Rutledge College in Spartanburg, S.C. I have also lectured at a CLE approved seminar on the family court financial declaration and served as discussion leader of the seminar."
Judge Fraley reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Fraley did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Fraley did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Fraley has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Fraley was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Fraley reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Fraley provided that he was "elected as chair of Woodland Heights Neighborhood Association, Spartanburg, SC."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Fraley appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Fraley appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Fraley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Judge Fraley provided the following account of his legal experience since his graduation from law school:
"I began practicing law with Michael W. Skeen in November 1977 and we formed a partnership (Skeen and Fraley) shortly thereafter. In 1979, Paul Townsend McChesney, who had been serving as law clerk to then South Carolina Supreme Court Justice, C. Bruce Littlejohn, joined our firm. Mr. Skeen left shortly thereafter to take a judicial position. Shortly after Mr. Skeen's departure, Paul Townsend McChesney's father, the Honorable Paul S. McChesney, Jr., retired as judge of the Family Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, to join our firm (Fraley, McChesney and McChesney). This firm engaged in general practice through most of its history, with most of my practice devoted to family law. From time to time several other attorneys were associated with the firm on different occasions. In May of 1998, I was elected to the Family Court bench."
Judge Fraley further reported:
"I was elected by the General Assembly to the Family Court in May 1998 and have served since January 1999. Family Court has jurisdiction over most family matters and juvenile crime."
The following is Judge Fraley's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
(a) Elizabeth W. Pearson v. Rondel W. Pearson, 98-DR-42-2547;
(b) Tom Drake Kisling v. Donna Joan Allison, 97-DR-23-1639;
(c) Laura Lea Mabry Ballenger v. Gerald John Ballenger, Jr., 97-DR-42-1859;
(d) Emelia Louise Nevill Brandt v. Raymond Henry Brandt, 98-DR-42-1783;
(e) Kenneth W. Edwards v. Gweneth S. Edwards, 99-DR-23-3739.
Judge Fraley reported that, "In the spring of 1995, I was a candidate for judicial office (Family Court, Seventh Circuit, Seat 1). I withdrew before the election."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Fraley's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found that "Judge Fraley meets if not exceeds all of the requirements of the evaluative criteria."
Judge Fraley is married to Margaret Karen Fraley. He has one child: Amy Loretta Fraley, age 12.
Judge Fraley reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) former member of the Board of Directors of Public Defender's Office of Spartanburg County for several years;
(c) former Chair of Spartanburg County Bar Association Family Court Committee (1997);
(d) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association (former member);
(e) Children's Committee (former member);
(f) Council for Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (former member)."
Judge Fraley provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Covenant Presbyterian Church (Deacon, Elder, Finance Committee chair, Commitment chair, Church Officer Nominating Committee chair, Pulpit Nominating Committee chair, adult Sunday School teacher, youth fellowship leader);
(b) former member of Spartanburg Civitan Club (served as Sergeant at Arms and on the Board of Directors) -more than 5 years ago;
(c) chair of Woodland Heights Neighborhood Association;
(d) National Youth Sports Coaches Association (little league coach);
(e) Westside Booster Association - softball coach;
(f) Parents Teachers Organization - Dawkins Middle School."
Judge Fraley further provided, "I feel I am respected by the Spartanburg Bar and by members of the Covenant Presbyterian Church, where I have been elected to numerous positions. My family is most important to me. Most of my spare time is spent with my wife and 12 year old daughter."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Gable meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Gable was born on January 20, 1955. She is 45 years old and a resident of Barnwell, South Carolina. Judge Gable provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Gable.
Judge Gable 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 Gable reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Gable 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 Gable 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 Gable to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Gable described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have attended many Probate CLE's, sponsored by the Bar and/or the South Carolina Probate Judges' Association. I have also attended Evidence CLE's and Advance Directive CLE's."
Judge Gable reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) 1992 I presented "Small Estates" at the New Probate Judges Training sponsored by Court Administration;
(b) 1993 I served on the panel for the Bench/Bar Probate CLE;
(c) 1995 I presented "Judicial Ethics and Family Settlement" to the Bench/Bar Probate CLE;
(d) 1997 I presented "An Estate Overview" at the New Probate Judges Training;
(e) I have served on several panels and spoken on other topics such as Ethics and "the Probate Judge" at other Probate Judge Associational meetings and trainings."
Judge Gable reported that she has not published any books or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Gable did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Gable did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Gable has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Gable 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 Gable reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "Not Available."
Judge Gable provided that she has held the following public office:
"October 1988- Present Probate Judge Barnwell County. Probate Judge is a county wide elected position. Probate Court has jurisdiction over all matters involving decedents and the administration of their estates. It also has jurisdiction over the commitment of mental and chemically dependent persons, incapacitated adults and can appoint conservators for incapacitated adults or minors."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Gable appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Gable appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Gable was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.
Judge Gable's legal experience since graduation from law school was reported as follows:
"1980-1983 Staff Attorney South Carolina Supreme Court. As a staff attorney I worked under the direct supervision of Clyde N. Davis, Chief Staff Attorney, as well as at the direction of the Justices on the Court. As a staff attorney, I reviewed briefs, wrote memorandums concerning cases on appeal, researched law and drafted appellate rules.
1983-1984 Staff Attorney South Carolina Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division. As a Staff Attorney, I was directly responsible for the preparation and arguing of criminal appeals. All appeals were, at that time, directly to the Supreme Court.
1984-1988 Associate of Bedingfield and Williams, Barnwell, SC; The law firm was a general plaintiff's practice. My practice concentrated in Domestic Law, Social Security, Real Estate and Probate. I represented many Clients in Family Court in Divorces, Child Custody matter, DSS abuse and Neglect matters and Juvenile matters.
1988-pres. Probate Judge, Barnwell County; As Probate Judge, I have been responsible for the direct supervision of my office. Estate Administration, Judicial Commitments and the issuance of Marriage Licenses. As a Judge in a smaller, more rural county, these responsibilities have often included sitting down with family members to explain the Probate of an estate, the possible need for an attorney, and that I was not their attorney nor could I give them legal advice. I have presided over numerous hearings involving the contest of Wills, valuation of estate property, the qualifications of persons who desire to be a Personal Representative and other matters related to Probate."
Judge Gable reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: 5%;
(b) State: 95%;
(c) Other: 0%."
Judge Gable reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 50% real estate, probate, and social security;
(b) Criminal: 0%;
(c) Domestic: 50%."
Judge Gable reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 0%;
(b) Non-jury: 100%."
Judge Gable provided that she most often served as lead counsel on most matters though she served as associate counsel in a few matters.
The following is Judge Gable's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"All of these matters would have occurred during the time I worked as an associate in Bedingfield Law Offices. I do not have access to all of these files as the work belongs to Bedingfield and Williams Law Offices. All of my files were left with Mr. Bedingfield when I became the Probate Judge. I do not recall any matters that were reported."
Judge Gable reported with regard to civil appeals she has personally handled:
"I handled very few domestic appeals when I practiced law. The majority of my experience in appellate court was working as a Staff Attorney for the Supreme Court and for the Attorney General."
The following is a list of Judge Gable's most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) In the Matter of Imogene Beaver Daniels, 99 ES 06 00 153;
(b) Joel L. Smith, et al. v. Sandra Grubbs Smith, 95 ES 03 000 79; (c)
(d) In the Matter of Vera B. Sanders, 96 ES 06 000 83; (e)
(d) In the Matter of Karl D. Caughman, 94 ES 06 000 56; (e)
(e) Janice Taylor Clark v. Nettise Mae Jones, In the Matter of Henry Austin Taylor, 95 ES 06 000 58."
Judge Gable provided further:
"I have listed only orders that I wrote. I have not included any orders that attorneys wrote at my direction. The last order, Clark v. Jones, was reversed by the Circuit Court. This case involved a jurisdictional question concerning the determination of heirs and paternity of a child of the decedent. This matter is still ongoing, but has not been referred back to my Court."
Judge Gable reported the following:
"In 1986, I ran for County Council of Barnwell County. Council at that time was elected at large. There were four candidates in the Democratic primary. I finished second in the primary and second (by less than 1% of the vote cast) in the run off."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Gable's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Gable is a "qualified and highly regarded judicial candidate." The committee approved of her candidacy for a family court judgeship.
Judge Gable is married to Timothy Richard Gable. She has two children: William Thomas Gable, age 13, part-time employee of Daniels' Pharmacy; Mary Katherine Gable, age 12, part-time employee of Discovery, an after school program that employs students to assist younger students.
Judge Gable reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar 1980;
(b) South Carolina Association of County-wide Elected Officials; Board Member for one term 1995;
(c) South Carolina Association of Probate Judges; Second Vice President 1996-97; First Vice President 1997-98; President 1998-99;
(d) Board Member; South Carolina Historical Advisory Board (SHRAB) appointed 2000."
Judge Gable provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Assistant Coach 1997-98 Barnwell Elementary Odyssey of the Mind Team;
(b) Founding Board Member and secretary of the Eco-Education Committee, Barnwell, South Carolina;
(c) Completed Tri-County Leadership Program 1999;
(d) Active member, including Women on Mission Leader, Sunday School Teacher, Church Clerk, Church Hostess and presently serving on the Pastor Search Committee, Seven Pines Baptist Church, 22 Seven Pines Road, Barnwell, S.C."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Garfinkel meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Garfinkel was born on August 10, 1944. He is 56 years old and is a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Garfinkel provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1970.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Garfinkel.
Judge Garfinkel 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 Garfinkel reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures in seeking this office.
Judge Garfinkel 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 Garfinkel 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 Garfinkel to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Garfinkel described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"1995: 6/12 SCCA Orientation School for Family Court Judges;
6/21 SC Conference of Family Court Judges;
8/10 SC Trial Lawyers Annual Conference;
8/24 SCCA Judicial Conference;
11/17 SC Bar Marital Litigation Update;
1996: 1/27 SC Bar Mid-Year Meeting ADR/Family Law Joint Section;
5/31 CCBA Ethics in Family Court Practice;
6/26 FCJA Family Court Judges Conference;
8/8 SCTLA Annual Convention;
8/22 SCCA Judicial Conference;
10/20 NCJFC Advanced Family Law: Crucial Issues;
1997: 1/25 SC Bar Family Law Mid-Year Meeting;
1/31 CCFC January Luncheon;
3/6 SCCFP Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;
5/7 FCJA Family Court Judges Conference;
8/14 SCTLA Conference;
8/21 SCCA Judicial Conference;
12/5 SC Bar Bench/Bar Seminar;
12/12 Substance Abuse Treatment by Lowcountry Children's Center;
1998: 1/23 SC Bar Family Law Mid-Year Meeting;
3/5 SCCFP Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;
5/21 SCCA Family Court Judges Conference;
8/13 SCTLA Annual Convention;
8/20 SCCA Judicial Conference;
10/23 LCC Child Suggestibility;
11/6 SC Bar Family Court Bench/Bar;
12/11 SCCA Chief Admin Judges Seminar;
1999: 1/22 SC Bar Family Law Section Mid-Year Meeting;
1/23 SC Bar Solo & Small Firm Practitioners Section Business Valuation;
3/1 SCCFP Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;
5/19 FCJA Family Court Judges Conference ;
8/5 SCTLA Annual Convention;
8/19 SCCA Judicial Conference;
12/3 SC Bar Marital Litigation."
Judge Garfinkel reported that he has taught or lectured as follows:
"Panelist, CLE, Family Court Bench/Bar, December 3, 1999;
Speaker, S. C. Bar Meeting, Breakfast Ethics, January 23, 2000;
Speaker, Charleston Christian Legal Society, March 7, 2000;
Speaker, MUSC School of Nursing, July 6, 2000."
Judge Garfinkel reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Garfinkel did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Garfinkel did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Garfinkel has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Garfinkel 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 Garfinkel reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Garfinkel reported that he has held the following public offices:
"Public Office: Occupational Safety and Health Administration Board-Member, representing First Congressional District, from October 1991 to May 1995 (appointed by members of the General Assembly from the First Congressional District); State Chairman, October 1992 to October 1994 (elected by fellow members of the Board)."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Garfinkel appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Garfinkel appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Garfinkel was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970.
Judge Garfinkel's legal experience since graduation from law school was reported as follows:
"Sole practice from 1970-1989 - exclusively civil practice with emphasis on Family Law and Real Estate.
From 1989-1995, associated with 6 - 8 lawyers, each maintaining individual practice. My emphasis was exclusively on Family Law."
Judge Garfinkel has held the following judicial position:
"Judge, Family Court, July 1, 1995, to date. Elected by the General Assembly. Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over domestic (family) matters and juveniles."
The following is a list of Judge Garfield's most significant orders and or opinions:
"(a) Spigner v. Spigner, 95-DR-10-2860;
(b) McIntyre v. McIntyre, 96-DR-23-2905;
(c) Hagood v. Hagood, 97-DR-30-894;
(d) Merlin v. Merlin, 95-DR-40-6115;
(e) Edelhoch v. Gross, 95-DR-40-6127. (f)
None of the cases have been appealed."
Judge Garfinkel reported that he ran for Family Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat No. 1, in January-April 1993 and withdrew after being found "Qualified" by Joint Legislative Screening Committee.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Garfinkel's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Garfinkel to be "a well-qualified and highly respected candidate whose service and dedication to the State of South Carolina is beyond reproach." The Committee wholeheartedly approved of Judge Garfinkel's election.
Judge Garfinkel is married to Susan Ann Naman Grush Garfinkel. He has three children: Jeffrey, age 30, Attorney; Allan, age 28, Nursing Home Administrator; and Haskel, age 24, Accountant.
Judge Garfinkel reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Charleston County Bar Association;
(b) South Carolina Bar;
(c) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;
(d) American Bar Association;
(e) Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity;
(f) Omicron Delta Kappa Honor Fraternity;
(g) National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1995-Present;
(h) American Judicature Society, 1995-Present."
Judge Garfinkel provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity;
(b) Brith Sholom Beth Israel Synagogue, Parliamentarian;
(c) Board of Governors;
(d) Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 1994-Present;
(e) Agape Ministries of Charleston, Project Restore, Recognition Award;
(f) South Carolina Children's Justice Act Task Force, November 1995-Present."
Judge Garfinkel additionally reported that he was appointed by Chief Justice Toal to the Wrap Around Expansion Project, July 2000.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Goldsmith meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Goldsmith was born on January 7, 1942. He is 59 years old and is a resident of Lancaster, South Carolina. Mr. Goldsmith provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Goldsmith.
Mr. Goldsmith 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. Goldsmith reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Goldsmith 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. Goldsmith 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. Goldsmith to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Goldsmith described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I typically receive more than the minimum number of CLE hours required each year and have participated in CLE seminars as described hereafter."
Mr. Goldsmith reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I have been a lecturer at the Hot Tips Seminar sponsored by the South Carolina Bar for approximately 10 years. I have spoken at the New Family Court Judges Orientation School for approximately the past five years."
Mr. Goldsmith reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Goldsmith did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Goldsmith has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Goldsmith 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. Goldsmith reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
Mr. Goldsmith reported his military service as follows:
"I served in the United States Army from 1964-1966. I received an honorable discharge as First Lieutenant. I am no longer in the service. My military serial number is unknown."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Goldsmith appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Goldsmith appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Goldsmith was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.
Mr. Goldsmith reported his previous legal experience as follows:
"I was a member of the law firm of Sutherland, Asbil & Brennan in Atlanta, Georgia, from 1969 to 1971.
When I returned to Lancaster in 1971, I began practicing law with Don Rushing. We had a general practice and handled matters in the family court as well as civil and criminal matters. I served as municipal judge for the City of Lancaster from approximately 1974-1975. I resigned due to a conflict of interest that developed as a result of the formation of a new law firm. In 1975, we merged our firm to include the partners of Thomas W. Thomas and Robert K. Folks. Mr. Thomas left our firm and became general counsel for Kanawha Insurance Company. Don S. Rushing left our firm to become a circuit judge and James H. Hodges became a partner in the firm. Thereafter, James H. Hodges left the firm to become counsel for the Springs Company.
Until some time in the mid 1980's, I continued to handle matters primarily involving civil litigation and family law. I ceased handling criminal matters except in an appointed capacity. I have continued to handle some civil litigation on a limited basis but have primarily restricted my practice to the family courts with the exception of some probate work. I currently have pending cases before the Court of Appeals. Two cases involve issues relating to equitable division. The other one involves, custody, visitation, child support and equitable division.
I estimate that I handle over 100 cases per year involving divorce and equitable division of property. Many of these same cases involve child custody, child support and alimony. Many of the cases are uncontested but others involve trials that may last 3-4 days.
I have routinely handled over the years, many adoption cases, including cases that were contested in which the termination of parental rights were involved.
I have handled cases involving abuse and neglect, both as an attorney and a guardian ad litem. I currently am not involved in any such cases. The last abuse and neglect case in which I was involved ended December 5, 2000.
For the past several years, I have only handled the Department of Juvenile Justice when I was appointed to represent a juvenile. I am currently the attorney of record, by virtue of appointment, for two Defendants charged in the court of general sessions."
Mr. Goldsmith reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: none;
(b) State: I primarily practice in the family courts although I have made a few appearances in circuit court."
Mr. Goldsmith reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 14%;
(b) Criminal: 1%;
(c) Domestic: 85%."
Mr. Goldsmith reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 1%;
(b) Non-jury: 99%."
Mr. Goldsmith provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Goldsmith's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Lee, et al. v. SC Department of Natural Resources, Sup. Ct. Opinion 25095 (filed March 27, 2000) In a 3-2 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the trial judge and held that the Department of Natural Resources did have the authority to prohibit the hunting of deer and turkey on Sundays in certain parts of the state.
(b) Huggins, et al. v. Lancaster County Department of Social Services, et al., Family Court of Lancaster County (Case No. 94-DR-29-703) dated January 11, 1996. I represented the Plaintiffs who were successful in a transracial adoption case. The mother and father of the minor child did not appear during the trial of the case. The child had a fraternal twin and an older half brother. The child's maternal grandmother was a party. The minor child was born premature and tested positive for cocaine at the time of her birth. The Department of Social Services, nevertheless, contested the adoption. The Plaintiffs and the minor child were not of the same race. An expert testified on behalf of the Plaintiffs that children of transracial adoptions fare no better or worse than do children who are adopted by parties of the same race.
(c) Ellerbe v. Ellerbe, 473 S.E.2d 881 (1996). In this case, my client was successful in having the trial judge reversed on virtually every issue in the case except for the grounds for divorce. The Court of Appeals held that it was error for the trial judge to reduce the value of a 401(k) account for hypothetical tax purposes in determining the net value of the marital estate and held that monies being paid to the husband for a covenant not to compete, constituted non-marital property.
(d) Bowles, et al. v. Bradley, 461 S.E.2d 811, 319 S.C. 377 (S.C. 1995). This case involved the construction for the Will and certain trusts of the late Elliott White Springs. The basic question was whether or not the use of the term "issue" in these documents encompassed children that might have thereafter been adopted by the grandchildren of Springs. At the time the documents were created, the law in South Carolina was unsettled as to whether or not the term "issue" included such adopted children. The Guardian ad Litem attempted to introduce extrinsic evidence to show the intent of Springs. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the current Probate Court's Rules of construction mandated that adopted children should be included in the class gift to "issue."
(e) Cabrey v. Cabrey. A divorce action in the Family Court of Chester County, South Carolina, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Order dated February 16, 1994. In this case, the wife was successful in obtaining permanent alimony of $5,000 per month. The wife was also declared to be the permanent and irrevocable beneficiary of her husband's retirement plan, to include any increases in the value of the plan that may be available and payable at the death of the husband."
The following is Mr. Goldsmith's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Ellerbe v. Ellerbe, 473 S.E.2d 881 (1996);
(b) Hinson v. Hinson, Ct. App. Opinion No. 3212, filed July 10, 2000;
(c) Edwards v. Edwards, Ct. App. Opinion No. 2000-UP-174, filed March 7, 2000;
(d) Blackmon v. Blackmon, Ct. App. Opinion No. 2000-UP-233, filed March 22, 2000;
(e) Hodge v. Hodge, 305 S.C. 521, 409 SE2d 436 (Ct. App. 1991);
(f) Skipper v. Skipper, 290 S.C. 412, 351 SE2d 153 (1986)."
Mr. Goldsmith provided that he served as "Municipal Judge, City of Lancaster from approximately 1973-1974. This was an appointed position. The jurisdiction of the court was limited to traffic tickets and other minor criminal violations punishable for up to 30 days or $100." During this time, he provided, "I was a partner in the law firm of Rushing & Goldsmith."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Goldsmith's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Goldsmith is married to Laura P. Goldsmith. He has one child: Amanda Ellen Goldsmith, age 25.
Mr. Goldsmith reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"I am a member of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association and am a member of the Family Law Section of the South Carolina Bar. I am a former member of the House of Delegates of the South Carolina Bar and a former member of the Board of Governors of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association. I am also a fellow in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Goolsby meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Goolsby was born on July 11, 1935. He is 65 years old and is a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Goolsby 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 1962.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Goolsby.
Judge Goolsby 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 Goolsby reported that he has spent $8 in campaign expenditures for copying costs, Office Max, Columbia, South Carolina, July 13, 2000.
Judge Goolsby 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 Goolsby 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 Goolsby to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Goolsby described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"01/13/95 Mid-Year Meeting: Tenth Annual Criminal Law Update;
02/24/95 Suing Uncle and Big Brother: Handling Federal & State Tort;
04/28/95 Appellate Practice in South Carolina;
08/24/95 Judicial Conference;
09/29/95 S.C. Tort Law Update/A Circuit Court Bench/Bar Seminar;
11/17/95 Reunion for Alumni of the Graduate Program for Judges;
01/26/96 Eleventh Annual Criminal Law Update;
05/01/96 Seminar for New Appellate Court Judges;
08/22/96 Judicial Conference;
01/25/97 Trial and Appellate Advocacy Mid-year Meeting Section Seminar;
01/24/97 Twelfth Annual Criminal Law Update;
08/21/97 Judicial Conference;
08/20/98 Judicial Conference;
10/09/98 Practice Before Masters-in-Equity and Special Referees;
09/26/99 Appellate Judges Seminar Series;
10/22/99 Court of Appeals Bar/Bench;
04/18/99 Appellate Judges Seminar Series;
01/22/99 Fourteenth Annual Criminal Law Update;
08/19/99 Judicial Conference."
Judge Goolsby reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"On February 24, 1995, I lectured at a seminar entitled "Suing Uncle & Big Brother: Handling Federal and State Tort Claims". My topic was "Claims Against the State of South Carolina: The View from the Bench."
On April 28, 1995, I lectured at a seminar entitled "South Carolina Appellate Practice." My topic was "The Record on Appeal."
I assisted in the development of and served as the moderator of a continuing legal education program entitled "South Carolina Appellate Court Bench/Bar." The program was held on October 22, 1999 in Columbia, South Carolina. The program concerned appellate law and practice.
In December 1999, I served without compensation as a faculty member at the National Advocacy Center, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, on the topic of oral arguments before appellate courts.
I lectured at an appellate judges seminar sponsored by the American Bar Association and held on September 26 through September 30, 1999, at Kohala Coast, Hawaii. My topic was "Law Clerks: Their Role, Their Training, and Their Selection." As the topic suggests, the lecture related to law clerks.
I accepted an invitation from the Council of Chief Judges of the American Bar Association to lecture at its annual meeting in Seattle, Washington on Saturday, November 18, 2000, on the topic "Choosing a Law Clerk: Separating the Elite from the Daft."
I have lectured in-house on the subject of opinion writing at continuing legal education programs designed to train and educate staff attorneys and law clerks at the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
On one or more occasions, I have judged moot court arguments presented by competing teams of law students from the University of South Carolina Law School."
Judge Goolsby also reported that he has taught the following courses:
(a) Introduction to Legal Method and Process at Columbia College, 1993;
(b) South Carolina Tort Claims Act, CLE, March 25, 1994;
(c) S.C. Tort Claims Act, A Primer and Then Some, CLE, Jan. 8, 1993;
(d) Recent Cases Under the Tort Claims Act, CLE, October 22, 1993;
(e) What Judges are Looking for in an Equitable Distribution Trial, CLE, June 10, 1980.
Judge Goolsby reported that he has published the following:
"NONFICTION
Note, "Remedy for a Runaway Shop," 13 S.C.L.Q. 455 (1961) (University of South Carolina);
South Carolina Death Penalty Act Handbook and Manual of Suggested Forms, Procedures, and Instructions (1977) (Office of Attorney General);
"What Appellate Judges are Looking for In an Equitable Distribution Case," The Bulletin, (Summer 1986) (published by the S.C. Trial Lawyers Association);
The South Carolina Tort Claims Act: A Primer and Then Some (1992) (South Carolina Bar);
Model Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement (1995) (co-author as member of the Joint Subcommittee on Judicial Discipline of the American Bar Association);
"A Few Brief Comments," South Carolina Lawyer (March/April 2000) (South Carolina Bar);
"Selecting a Law Clerk," Appellate Judges News (Winter 1997/1998);
"Veracity," Appellate Judges News (Summer 1999)."
Judge Goolsby further reported:
"I served as Editor of The Appellate Judges News, a publication of the American Bar Association, from 1997 to 1999. As editor, I wrote a "From the Editor" column that appeared in each of its editions during the time I was editor."
"FICTION
Sweet Potato Biscuits and Other Stories (First Printing Adams Press 1996);
"The Box With the Green Bow and Ribbon," St. Anthony Messenger (December 1996);
"The Box With the Green Bow and Ribbon," (Wentworth 1997);
"Toy Counter Encounter," Back Porch (Winter 1997);
Sweet Potato Biscuits and Other Stories (Second Printing Sprout 1998);
"Extract from Her Own Law," Inkplots, Random Acts of Writing (Xlibris 1998);
"Bench Made," Id.;
"Toy Counter Encounter," Id.;
"A Question," Id.;
"When My Daddy Lay Dying," Id.;
"Ever Thought of Self Publishing?" Id.;
Her Own Law (Xlibris 1999);
Humanity, Darling (Writer's Showcase 2000)."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Goolsby did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Goolsby did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Goolsby has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Goolsby 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 Goolsby reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Goolsby reported that his military service record consists of the following:
"July 1954-June 1956; United States Army; Private First Class (E-3); obligation completed; honorable discharge."
Judge Goolsby reported that he has served in the following public offices:
"I have served in the appointive positions of Assistant Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Chief Deputy Attorney General. I served with the Attorney General's office for approximately 20 years, from 1962 to 1972 and from 1973 to August 31, 1983.
I was appointed by the Supreme Court on March 15, 1985, to serve as Chairman of the Judicial Continuing Legal Education Commission and I served in that capacity until my term expired on December 31, 1991."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Goolsby appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Goolsby appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Goolsby was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1962.
Judge Goolsby described his legal experience as follows:
"(a) Assistant Attorney General 1962-1972;
(b) Deputy Attorney General 1972;
(c) Partner, Bogoslow and Goolsby, Walterboro, S.C., 1972- 1973;
(d) Deputy Attorney General, 1973-1983;
(e) Chief Deputy Attorney General, 1983 to August 1983; and
(f) Associate Judge, South Carolina Court of Appeals, September 1, 1983, to date."
(g)
Judge Goolsby further provided:
"While employed by the South Carolina Attorney General, I represented the State and its agencies, officers, and employees in the prosecution and defense of civil and criminal cases at all judicial levels and I authored numerous Attorney General opinions; and while a partner of Bogoslow and Goolsby, I engaged in the general practice of law representing clients in both civil and criminal matters."
"From September 1, 1983, I have served as an associate judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. I was elected by the South Carolina General Assembly in joint session. The court has general appellate jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases, except as proscribed by statute or constitutional provision. S.C. Code Ann. Section 14-8-200 (Supp. 1999) limits the court's jurisdiction as follows: the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals: from a final judgment of the circuit court where the sentence is death; from a final judgment of the circuit court setting public utility rates; from a final judgment involving a challenge on state or federal grounds to the constitutionality of a law or ordinance and the question raised is a significant one as determined by the Supreme Court; from a final judgment of the circuit court involving bonds issued by the State or its political subdivisions; from a final judgment of the circuit court pertaining to elections and election procedures; from any order limiting an investigation by a state grand jury; and from any order of the family court relating to an abortion by a minor.
On a number of occasions, I have been asked by the South Carolina Supreme Court to serve by appointment of the Chief Justice as an Acting Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, a court that has general appellate jurisdiction in all cases in this State.
In 1987, I served by appointment from the Chief Justice on one occasion as an Acting Circuit Judge of the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, a court of general trial jurisdiction in all civil cases in this State except cases involving domestic and probate matters."
Judge Goolsby reported that the following are his five most significant orders/opinions:
"(a) Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690 (Ct. App. 1983), cert. denied, 283 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984) (this case dealt principally with the question of the test of liability in a medical malpractice case involving informed consent and our court held in an opinion authored by me, with Judge Shaw and Judge Cureton concurring, that the scope of a physician's duty to disclose is measured by those communications a reasonable medical practitioner in the same branch of medicine would make under the same or similar circumstances).
(b) Beall v. Doe, 281 S.C. 363, 315 S.E.2d 186 (Ct. App. 1984), (this case dealt principally with the question of whether collateral estoppel could be asserted offensively where there was no mutuality and our court, adopting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS Section 29 at 291-92 (1982), held in an opinion authored by me, with Judge Gardner and Judge Cureton concurring, that nonmutual collateral estoppel could be asserted offensively);
(c) Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E.2d 351 (Ct. App. 1985), cert. denied, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated June 27, 1985 (this case dealt principally with the question of whether S.C. Code Ann. Section 61-9-410 (19776) allows an intoxicated person who suffers injury as a proximate result of a beer licensee's selling the intoxicated person beer in violation of the statute provides a basis for civil liability and our court held in an opinion authored by me, with Judge Shaw and Judge Cureton concurring and relying on Harrison v. Berkely, 32 S.C.L. (1 Strob.) 525 (1847), that a violation of the statute can give rise to a civil cause of action, that it did so in that instance, and that the question of proximate cause was a fact question for the jury to decide).
(d) Ballou v. Sigma Nu, 291 S.C. 140, 352 S.E.2d 488 (Ct. App. 1986) (this case generally dealt with the issue of fraternity hazing during an initiation process and our court held in an opinion authored by me, with Judge Bell and Judge Cureton concurring, that a college fraternity owes a duty of care to its initiates not to injure them during the process of initiation).
(e) Noack Enterprises v. Country Store, 290 S.C. 475, 351 S.E.2d 347 (Ct. App. 1990), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated December 7, 1987 (this case dealt principally with the question of whether a private cause of action for violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act could be brought where the transaction affected only the parties to the transaction and our court held in an opinion authored by me, with Judge Bell and Judge Cureton concurring, that the UTPA is not available to redress a private wrong where the public interest is not affected)."
Judge Goolsby further reported:
"I taught without pay a law-related course at Columbia College, Columbia, South Carolina, during the Spring semester, 1993. My immediate supervisor was the Chairperson of the Department of History and Political Science, Dr. Ann McCulloch."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Goolsby's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Goolsby to be "a qualified and highly regarded judge." The committee wholeheartedly approved of his continued service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Goolsby is married to Mary Ellen "Prue" Fraser. He has one child: Philip Lane Goolsby, M.D., age 44, family practice physician, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Judge Goolsby reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar. I served as Section Delegate representing the Trial and Appellate Advocacy Section in the House of Delegates. I resigned from the House of Delegates upon my election in July 1983 to the South Carolina Court of Appeals;
(b) Richland County Bar Association;
(c) American Bar Association. I served on the ABA's joint Subcommittee on Judicial Discipline. The subcommittee drafted the uniform rules suggested for use by the states in disciplining judges. These rules were approved by the ABA in August 1994;
I also participated in 1994, at the request of the ABA's Central and European Law Initiative, in the analysis of the draft law of the Republic of Moldova with regard to the organization of Moldova's judiciary;
From July 1996 until August 2000, I was a member of the Executive Committee of the Appellate Judges Conference of the Judicial Division of the ABA;
From July 1997 until August 1999, I was editor the Appellate Judges News, an ABA publication aimed at appellate judges;
(d) American Inns of Court (The Citadel Chapter), counselor, approximately 1990 to 1993 (organization no longer functions);
(e) Lexington County Judicial Association, vice-president approximately 1985-1988 (organization no longer functions);
(f) Phi Alpha Delta legal fraternity. "
Judge Goolsby provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Honorary Bencher and Bencher in Chief. The Citadel Inn of Court;
(b) The Citadel Alumni Association (formerly the Association of Citadel Men);
(c) Brigadier Club of The Citadel;
(e) U.S.C. Alumni Association;
(f) University of Virginia Alumni Association;
(g) Woodland Hills Civic Club;
(h) the American Legion; and
(i) the Inkplots Writers' Group."
Judge Goolsby also provided:
"I served from 1985 to 1991 as Chairman of the South Carolina Judicial Continuing Education Commission."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jacobs meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Jacobs was born on August 26, 1946. He is 54 years old and is a resident of Camden, South Carolina. Judge Jacobs provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jacobs.
Judge Jacobs 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 Jacobs reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures in seeking this office.
Judge Jacobs 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 Jacobs 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 Jacobs to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Jacobs described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have met all the requirements for Judicial CLE over the last five years by attending all mandatory courses as well as the fifteen hours each year and I have an extra 30 hours carried forward at this time."
Judge Jacobs reported that he gave a one-hour presentation on the Fee Dispute Resolution process and the Client Security Fund.
Judge Jacobs reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Jacobs did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jacobs did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jacobs has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Jacobs 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 Jacobs reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Jacobs describes his military service as follows:
"June 1968-June 1972, Captain US Army
Regular Army- OF114978; Inactive, Honorable discharge."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Jacobs appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Jacobs appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Jacobs was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975.
Judge Jacobs describes his work history since graduation from law school as follows:
"1975-1977 Associate for Carl R. Reasonover-General Practice;
1977-1980 Partner, Reasonover and Jacobs-General Practice;
1980-1999 Sole Proprietor-General Practice."
The following is Judge Jacobs' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Triminal vs. Triminal-339 SE 2nd 869, 287 SC 495 (1986);
(b) Prather vs. Tupper- 230 SE 2nd 712, 267 SC 636 (1976);
(c) State vs. Bobby Pope, and D.S.S. vs. Bobby Pope;
(d) Williams vs. Williams;
(e) State vs. Frank Mattox."
The following is Judge Jacobs' account of two civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Triminal vs. Triminal, appeal from Family Court 339 S.E.2d 869, 287 SC 495 (1986);
(b) Prather vs. Tupper, appeal from Family Court 230 S.E.2d 712, 267 SC 636 (1976)."
Judge Jacobs reports he has held the following judicial positions:
"October 1975-October 1977, Assistant City Judge - City of Camden;
February 1978-August 1999, Master-in-Equity for Kershaw County-general civil jurisdiction under the Court of Common Pleas;
August 1999-Present, Family Court Judge- Seat 3 Fifth Judicial Circuit."
The following is Judge Jacobs' account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Turner vs. Brinegar;
(b) Reggie Porter Construction Co. vs. Wyant;
(c) Carlos vs. Carlos;
(d) Herndon, Inc. vs. Martin;
(e) Gulledge vs. Moyer."
Judge Jacobs reported that he ran for Seat 3, Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in May and June 1989 and lost to Judge William R. Byars, Jr.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Jacobs' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Jacobs "is a qualified and highly regarded judge." The committee approved of his reelection.
Judge Jacobs is married to Karen Lee Ponist Jacobs. He has two children. Collin Wayne Jacobs, age 25, Electrical Engineer; and Tyler Warren Jacobs, age 23, Mechanical Engineer.
Judge Jacobs reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) SC Bar Association;
(b) American Bar Association-Family Law Section;
(c) Kershaw County Bar Association-President twice, VP twice, Secretary-Treasurer/ twice;
(d) SC Trial Lawyers Association until 1988;
(e) Phi Alpha Delta-legal fraternity;
(f) Council of Equity Judges."
Judge Jacobs provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Boy Scouts of America-my family received Scouting Family of the Year award in 1990 for the Wateree District and I also received the District Award of Merit the same year;
(b) B.P.O.E. (Elks);
(c) American Legion;
(d) Veterans of Foreign Wars;
(e) Reserve Officers Association-Life member."
(f)
Judge Jacobs additionally reported, "In the past I have served of the local Boards of the following organizations: United Way for Kershaw County; Red Cross; YMCA; and Cancer Society. I have served on the SC Judicial Council by appointment of the Chief Justice as a representative of the Masters-in Equity."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Johnson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Johnson was born on February 20, 1944. He is 56 years old and is a resident of Taylors, South Carolina. Judge Johnson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Johnson.
Judge Johnson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Johnson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Johnson 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 Johnson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Johnson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Johnson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Attended all South Carolina mandatory judicial continuing legal education each year.
(b) Focus has been on family and juvenile law.
(c) Have exceeded minimum required hours of continuing legal education each year."
Judge Johnson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I have instructed classes for volunteer guardians ad litem in Greenville County and spoken at statewide volunteer guardian ad litem conferences. I have moderated judicial education programs as vice-president (program chairman) and president of the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges."
Judge Johnson reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Johnson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Johnson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Johnson reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Johnson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Johnson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Johnson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.
Judge Johnson reported the following legal experience:
"From my admittance to the South Carolina Bar in 1969 until assuming a Family Court judgeship in 1982 I practiced law in the small general practice law firm headed by Rex L. Carter in Greenville. I have been a Family Court judge continuously since June 1, 1982."
Judge Johnson reported that he has held the following judicial offices:
Family Court Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, from June 1, 1982, until the present. Elected by the State Legislature in 1982 and re-elected in 1985, 1989, and 1995. Jurisdiction is determined and limited by the Family Court Act.
Judge Johnson reported that the following are his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Pyle v. Pyle, South Carolina Court of Appeals, 2000-UP-462 (2000). The Court of Appeals affirmed my order terminating alimony to the former wife who had previously entered into a court-approved agreement that her alimony would terminate upon her cohabitation with an unrelated man. My order found several indicia of cohabitation sufficient to terminate alimony despite the denial by the former wife of cohabitation.
(b) Rudisill v. Rudisill, South Carolina Court of Appeals, 98-UP-334 (1998). The Court of Appeals affirmed my order awarding permanent periodic alimony to the wife. In doing so it reaffirmed the principle in our domestic law that permanent periodic alimony is favored over rehabilitative alimony which should be awarded only upon a showing of special circumstances justifying departure from the normal preference for permanent periodic support.
(c) In the Interest of Ronald S., a minor under the age of seventeen years, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion No.2730 (1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed my decision in which I followed the terms of another judge's suspended commitment of a delinquent juvenile to the Department of Juvenile Justice despite the fact that I was not bound by the terms of the juvenile's suspended sentence. The Court of Appeals in its opinion affirmed my asserted principle that juveniles benefit from the consistency of enforcing court orders.
(d) Greenville County Department of Social Services v. Bowes, 313 S.C. 188, 437 S.E.(2d) 107 (1993). The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed my termination of the parental rights of a schizophrenic mother and stated the principle that prior child abuse found by a preponderance of the evidence is insufficient to support termination of parental rights in a subsequent case where the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence applies.
(e) Chastain v. Chastain, South Carolina Court of Appeals, 93-UP-051 (1993). The Court of Appeals affirmed my decision ordering more child support than indicated by the child support guidelines. I had found that the child required additional care due to Downs Syndrome which made extraordinary demands on the custodial parent and interfered with that parent's employment."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Johnson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found that "Judge Johnson meets if not exceeds all of the requirements of the evaluative criteria."
Judge Johnson is married to Carol McKinney Johnson. He has two children: Matthew Kinard Johnson, age 31, attorney; and Margaret Carol Johnson, age 27, elementary school teacher.
Judge Johnson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Greenville County Bar Association;
(b) South Carolina Bar;
(c) South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges (secretary-treasurer 1991; vice-president 1992; president 1993);
(d) National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges."
Judge Johnson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Westminster Presbyterian Church, Greenville, S.C. (ruling elder);
(b) Greenville Rotary Club (various committee memberships)."
Judge Johnson further commented:
"I believe that I have served the citizens of South Carolina as a Family Court judge for over eighteen years with personal and professional integrity in a conscientious, diligent and competent manner."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mrs. Jones meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mrs. Jones was born on July 21, 1965. She is 35 years old and is a resident of Orangeburg, South Carolina. Mrs. Jones 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 1990.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mrs. Jones.
Mrs. Jones 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.
Mrs. Jones reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mrs. Jones 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.
Mrs. Jones 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 Mrs. Jones to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mrs. Jones described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"03/03/95 SC Elder Law, Clearwater Info #5-73, 6.0 hrs; .50 ethics;
03/21/95 Family Limited Partnerships, NBI, 6.0 hrs; .50 ethics;
05/21/96 Child Custody & Visitation, NBI, 6.0 hrs; 1.0 ethics;
09/06/96 4th Annual Probate Court Bench/Bar, SC Bar, 6.42 hrs;
10/04/96 Marital Tax: The Other Three-Letter, SC Bar, 5.75 hrs;
12/10/96 Ethics for Family Law Practitioners, SC Bar, 3.0 ethics;
09/12/97 Domestic Practice: Hot Tips From, SC Bar, 6.50 hrs;
11/21/97 Professionalism in Practice, SC Bar, 6.0 hrs;
12/09/97 Ethics for Family Law Practitioners, SC Bar, 3.25 ethics;
08/28/98 Domestic Practice: Hot Tips From, SC Bar, 7.25 hrs;
09/11/98 6th Annual Probate Bench/Bar, SC Bar, 6.50 hrs;
12/08/98 Legal Ethics & Professional Resp., SC Bar, 2.0 ethics;
05/07/99 Cool Tips from the Hottest Lawyers, SC Bar, 5.66 hrs; .50 ethics;
09/24/99 Hot Tips from the Best Domestic, SC Bar, 6.0 hrs;
05/19/00 Cool Tips from the Hottest Domestic, SC Bar, 6.0 hrs."
Mrs. Jones reported that she has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Mrs. Jones reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mrs. Jones did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Mrs. Jones did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mrs. Jones has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mrs. Jones 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:
Mrs. Jones reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Mrs. Jones appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mrs. Jones appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mrs. Jones was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1990.
Mrs. Jones described her legal experience since graduation from law school as follows:
"Staff Attorney. South Carolina Supreme Court, Columbia, South Carolina, August 1990 to June 1991. Responsibilities included researching and preparing memorandum opinions for the Court in the areas of criminal law, domestic law, civil law and appellate practice.
Partner. Bryant, Fanning & Shuler, Orangeburg, South Carolina, July 1991 to Present. Primary responsibility includes handling all domestic and Family Court cases for the firm including divorces, separate maintenance actions, custody and visitation, child support cases, adoptions, DSS appointed cases and all other types of cases heard in Family Court. I have also served as a Guardian ad Litem in numerous private custody cases. Other responsibilities include handling personal injury cases, some insurance defense, conducting title searches and real estate closings, preparing wills, probating estates and writing appellate briefs. During the course of my partnership with Bryant, Fanning & Shuler, my practice has evolved such that over the past five years ninety (90%) per cent of my work is in the area of domestic and family law."
Mrs. Jones reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: None;
(b) State: Common Pleas: Several times yearly;
Family Court: Several times weekly."
Mrs. Jones reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) civil: 10%;
(b) criminal: less than 1%;
(c) domestic: 90%."
Mrs. Jones reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) jury: 1%;
(b) non-jury: 99%."
Mrs. Jones provided that she most often served as:
"Jury: associate counsel; Non-jury: sole counsel."
The following is Mrs. Jones' account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Jessie Earl Martin v. Shirley Logan Martin; 97-DR-38-1614, Orangeburg County. Significant because it was a major custody battle which took two days to try. I represented Defendant-Mother who was found at fault in the break-up of the marriage. I was able to overcome the Mother's fault by showing she had been the primary caretaker of the child and was ultimately successful in obtaining sole custody for Defendant-Mother.
(b) Miriam Cason and David Stradling v. Elizabeth Cason Hurley; 98-DR-09-129, Calhoun County. Significant because I represented Plaintiff Grandmother who was attempting to seek custody of grandchild from Plaintiff's daughter. Burden of proof was on Plaintiffs to prove the natural mother unfit. Case involved much discovery and many court appearances on motions. Case was ultimately settled through mediation.
(c) Carol M. Kirby v. Wayne Carroll Kirby and Wayne C. Kirby II; 92-DR-38-2103, Orangeburg County. Significant because it involved the issue of common law marriage and the issue of reconciliation immediately after a divorce was verbally granted but before Decree was signed. This case was appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
(d) In Re: Estate of Wayne C. Kirby, Deceased (from Probate Court, 94ES3800503) 95-CP-38-257 Orangeburg County. Significant because it involved the issue of wife asserting right to elective share after having been granted equitable division in an Order of Separate Maintenance issued by Family Court prior to death of husband.
(e) Troy Cain v. Lynne B. Cain; 99-DR-38-521, Orangeburg County. Significant because of issues of fault in causing the breakup of the marriage and equitable division."
The following is Mrs. Jones' account of five civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a) Carol M. Kirby v. Wayne Carroll Kirby and Wayne C. Kirby, II; SC Court of Appeals, decided December 8, 1994; Unpublished Opinion No. 94-UP-292.
(b) Judy R. Glover, as Guardian ad Litem for Jennifer Renee Tyler v. Investment Life Company of America, Karen Tyler and Grace Tyler, SC Court of Appeals, decided December 13, 1993; 316 S.C. 126, 439 S.E.2d 297 (Ct.App. 1993). This case was not an appeal of a domestic case, but it involved the issue of a divorced father's failure to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the minor child as required by a Family Court Order. The divorced father died, having changed the beneficiary of the life insurance to his current wife and his mother.
(c) Sherri C. Malpass v. James A. Hodson, Jr. and Lynda S. Hodson; SC Supreme Court, decided November 9, 1992; 309 S.C. 397, 424 S.E.2d 470 (1992). I was not named as an attorney of record on this appeal because I did not participate at the trial level. However, I researched and wrote the appellate brief filed on behalf of the Hodsons, appellants."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mrs. Jones' temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Mrs. Jones to be "a well-qualified and highly respected candidate" with reservations related her juvenile experience.
Mrs. Jones is married to Carl Arthur Jones. She has two children: Savannah Gué Jones, age 5; and Turner Nathaniel Jones, born on September 6, 2000.
Mrs. Jones reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Orangeburg County Bar Association;
(b) South Carolina Bar Association;
(c) American Bar Association;
(d) Orangeburg County Chamber of Commerce - Board of Directors, 1996-1999; Vice President, Public Affairs, 1997; Vice President, Community Betterment, 1998."
Mrs. Jones provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Orangeburg County Chamber of Commerce;
(b) Junior Service League of Orangeburg, Inc.; Board of Directors, 1996-1999; President, 1998-99; Vice President, 1997-98; Active Member, 1993-99."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Kinard meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court Judge.
Judge Kinard was born on October 18, 1939. He is 60 years old and is a resident of Camden, South Carolina. Judge Kinard provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1964.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Kinard.
Judge Kinard 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 Kinard reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Kinard 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 Kinard 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 Kinard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Kinard described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
1995:
Jan 14 SC Bar Mid-Year Mtg, Task Force on Justice for All 3.5 hrs CLE;
Jan 13 SC Bar Mid-Year Mtg, 10th Annual Criminal Law Update 6 hrs;
Apr 20 John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court .75 hr CLE;
May 17 Circuit Court Judges Spring Conference 4.25 hrs JCLE;
Jun 3 Annual Meeting, Alternate Dispute Resolution 3 hrs CLE;
Jun 2 Annual Meeting, Trial & Appellate Advocacy 3 hrs CLE;
Aug 4-6 1995 American Bar Association Meeting, Chicago 12 hrs CLE;
Aug 24 Judicial Conference 8 hrs JCLE;
Sep 29 SC Tort Law Update: A Circuit Court Bench/Bar Sem. 6 hrs CLE;
Aug 10-12 SC Trial Lawyers Association, Hilton Head 6 hrs CLE;
Nov 9-12 SC Defense Trial Lawyers meeting, Sea Island, GA 6 hrs CLE;
1996:
Jan 26 Eleventh Annual Criminal Law Update 6.25 hrs JCLE;
Jan 27 Mid-Year Meeting: Employment & Labor Law Section 3 hrs;
Apr 21 General Jurisdiction (National Judicial College) 86.58 hrs JCLE;
Apr 12 Understanding New SC Criminal Offenses & Penalties 6.25hrs;
May 15 Circuit Judges Spring Conference 8.25 hrs JCLE;
Jun 7 Trial and Appellate Advocacy Annual Meeting 3 hrs CLE;
Jun 8 Torts and Insurance Practices/Natural Resources/Trial and Appellate 12 hrs CLE;
Aug 8 Annual Convention 12 hrs CLE;
Aug 22 Judicial Conference 8.25 hrs JCLE;
Sep 30-Oct 2 Toronto, Canada - Educational Conference 9.75 hrs CLE;
Oct 24 Mediation Pilot Meeting 2 hrs CLE;
Oct 17 Mediation Project Meeting 2 hrs CLE;
1997:
Jan 23-26 University of Minnesota, Sentencing Workshop 14 hrs CLE;
Feb 18 Clerks of Court Meeting, Round Table (CP) 2.7 hrs CLE;
Feb 27-Mar 3 University of Minnesota-Sentencing Workshop
Apr 4 ADR Program 6.5 hours CLE;
Apr 17-20 University of Minnesota-Sentencing Workshop 14 hrs CLE;
May 14-16 Circuit Court Judges Spring Conference, Fripp Island;
Aug 20-21 Annual Judicial Conference, Columbia 10 hrs JCLE;
Sep 30 12th Annual Criminal Law Update 6 hrs CLE;
Nov 6-9 SC Defense Trial Attorney's Assocation Mtg 6 hrs CLE;
1998:
Jan 9 Seminar of Circuit & Family Court Judges 5.25 hrs JCLE;
Jan 23 13th Annual Criminal Law Update 6.5 hrs CLE;
Jan 20 January Inn of Court .50 hr CLE;
Feb 25 February Inn of Court 1 hr CLE;
May 14-15 Circuit Court Judges Spring Conf., Fripp Island 6 hrs JCLE;
Aug 2 Special Problems in Criminal Evidence, National Judicial College 25.50 hrs JCLE;
Aug 13 Annual Convention - SC Trial Lawyers 14.50 hrs CLE;
Aug 20 Judicial Conference 8.25 hrs JCLE;
Oct 15 October Inn of Court 1 hr CLE;
Nov 9 November Inn of Court 1 hr CLE;
Dec 11 Administrative Judges Seminar 5.25 hrs JCLE;
1999:
Jan 22-23 SC Bar Mid-Year Meeting 10 hrs JCLE;
Jan 7 Inn of Court meeting 1 hr CLE;
Feb 17 Inn of Court meeting 1 hr CLE;
May 12 Circuit Court Judges meeting 6 hrs CLE;
Mar 25 Inn of Court Banquet 1 hr CLE;
Aug 5 Annual Convention, SC Trial Lawyers 12 hrs CLE;
Aug 19 Judicial Conference 7.25 hrs CLE;
2000:
Jan 21 SC Bar Mid-Year Mtg, Charleston 6 hrs CLE;
Jun 16 SC Bar Mtg 3 hrs CLE;
May 10-12 Circuit Court Judges Spring Conference 6 hrs CLE.
Judge Kinard reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) Presented Trial and Appellate Advocacy in 1989 - CLE;
(b) Panelist on Bench Bar 1992 Update - 10/9/92 JCLE;
(c) Presenter at CLE on Automotive Law Materials prepared by Hon. Ralph King Anderson, Nov 1992;
(d) JCLE material presented jointly with Mike Tighe - Default Matters - 1991;
(e) Moderator and Program Coordinator at October 1993 JCLE;
(f) Panelist at 1994 Criminal Law JCLE;
(g) Panelist at 1990 JCLE State Grand Jury Overview;
(h) Panelist at various SC Defense Lawyers Conferences;
(i) Presenter at 1992 and 1993 meeting of Circuit Judges of jury charges;
(j) Presenter, various programs at virtually every Spring Conference of Circuit Judges;
(k) Presenter of Criminal Law Changes JCLE 1996;
(l) Moderator Bench/Bar Update 1994;
(m) Presented two CLEs on Alternative Dispute Resolution in 1996;
(n) Presenter Pilot Project to Annual Conference of Circuit Court Judges 1997;
(o) Group Facilitator General Jurisdiction - Judicial College 1996;
(p) Group Facilitator Advanced Evidence - Judicial College 1998;
(q) Presenter 1997 Mediation at John O'Neall Inn of Court;
(r) Program Chairman 1998 Educational Conference of Circuit Court Judges
Also presenter on Jury Selection Problems - Trial Participant;
(s) Program Chairman 1999 Spring Judges Conference
(t) Presenter at (1997, 1998, 1999) SC Defense Trial Lawyers Association Trial Academies on trial procedures"
Judge Kinard reported that he has published the following:
"(a) Published Trial and Appellate Advocacy for 1989 CLE;
(b) Published Workplace Defamation and other Ancillary causes of action in employment claims in 1992;
(c) Published JCLE material jointly with Mike Tighe - Default Matters - 1991."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Kinard did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Kinard did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kinard has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Kinard 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 Kinard reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Kinard listed the public offices he has held other than judicial office:
"(a) I was President of the Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce in 1983;
(b) Elected by the members as President of the Camden Country Club, 2 years from 1981/1982-1982/1983;
(c) Elected Vice-Chairman of Wateree Community Actions 1969 to 1972 by the membership; Appointed to the Board by the Kershaw County Council; elected Vice-Chairman by the members;
(d) Appointed by City Council to serve on the Board of the Kershaw County Commission on Drug Abuse from 1970 until 1975."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Kinard appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Kinard appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Kinard was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1964.
Judge Kinard provided the following account of his previous legal experience:
"While in law school I clerked for the old McKay Firm performing general duties as well as research and rendering trial preparation assistance and was permitted to sit with the late Gus Black, Eli Walker and the McKays, Doug Jr. and Jay, during various trials. Upon graduation from law school in January of 1964, I moved to Camden and clerked for Henry Savage, Jr. and Ed Royall until admission to the Bar in April of 1964 when I became an associate.
Henry Savage was a business attorney and tried with my assistance in mid-1964 his only circuit court case in my 24 years with the law firm, in which he successfully caused the reassessment I assisted in drafting.
The firm was strictly a defense firm when I arrived. Ed Royall generally preferred to handle non-circuit matters; so since I appeared at ease with motions, pleadings and procedure within the court system, most of the litigation was turned over to me, although Ed obviously assisted me where our exposure was great or his experience needed. Domestic cases and equity matters were quickly added to my slot, along with City Court appearances and a few Worker's Compensation hearings. By 1965, when I was made a partner, we had picked up several new carriers as clients and also expanded our representation in commercial litigations, with the addition of several finance companies to our clientele. Several utilities and roads have crossed portions of Kershaw County during my practice years and I have participated in or handled such cases. Over the years, I have appeared in Social Security Disability, Unemployment Security Commission and zoning type matters as well as appearing in Coroner's inquests.
In trials, my representation of Defendants in personal injury litigation exceeded that of Plaintiffs, but we had fair success representing Plaintiffs and the firm has had at least one settlement exceeding $100,000.00 per year, fortunately, for the last several years that I practiced with the firm.
As managing partner in charge of personnel and procedure from 1968 until my departure in May of 1988, delegating and assigning various cases and functions to firm members was my responsibility. We added Bob Sheheen in 1968, Bill Byars in 1972, Moultrie Burns in 1974, Doug Robinson in 1979, Dana Morris in 1983, and John Rabb in 1987. I generally trained Bob, Bill, Doug, Dana, and John in trial procedure and tried jury cases with each of them.
On the criminal side, in my early years the firm did not handle criminal matters, but I was immediately court appointed on many cases, which exposure led to my acquiring several fee producing criminal cases and through the years I had been involved in the defense of virtually all crimes from hunting violations in Magistrate's Court through several murder trials in Circuit Court and trial defense of a bank president on embezzlement charges in Federal Court. However, I did prefer civil practice, so I generally ceased handling criminal cases in 1975 as Bob Sheheen and Bill Byars of my former law firm handled those cases and I would not generally participate unless some special circumstance required my input.
The firm handled numerous real estate matters over which I generally supervised the closing, including many commercial projects such as apartment projects, shopping centers, with many realtors and builders as clients, numerous contract and commission controversies I personally handled through litigation. Generally, small estates were handled by other firm members, but I handled a few large estates and prepared estate tax returns for the firm.
Over the years, routine foreclosures, collections suits and claim and delivery actions became my responsibility, which functions I handled as one of my secretaries was quite competent in setting these actions up and following through with minimum attorney input.
Prior to 1979, I filed a few bankruptcies for the firm and studied the changes and then bankruptcies with the new changes have mushroomed and while the bankruptcy practice only consumed about 10% of my total law practice, from September of 1987 through December 31, 1987, I filed 21 individual and corporate bankruptcies, consisting of Chapter 13's, Chapter 11's and 7's and from the first of 1988 until my departure in May of 1988, I filed about five more. I handled bankruptcies from individuals and corporations in all the surrounding counties as there was apparently no attorney in the area outside of Columbia who then handled them, and I was fully competent to handle all styles from individual through business reorganization and I also represented creditors in bankruptcy matters.
As managing partner, I was cognizant of most of the pending case, but I had moved toward a business and tax planning role as the firm's representative of local banks, my services at that time as personal attorney for a savings and loan and my representation of various business interest dictated that my time be then spent as roster meetings, interrogatories, pleadings and depositions required blocks of my time I could more profitably spend on other matters, therefore, as mentioned above, my limited criminal practice had ceased and I had limited my Family Court practice to a minimum and would have eliminated it entirely if family problems were not interwoven with business relationships. The savings and loan that I represented, First Federal, converted to stock ownership and I prepared proxy statements and obtained their approval for the years 1986 and 1987, and in 1987 for Palmetto State Savings and Loan. Palmetto State and First Federal merged after I became a judge.
I represented numerous realtors and builders and handled numerous warranty and contract disputes.
After my election to the bench and swearing-in on May 3, 1988, I have presided over numerous civil and criminal trials, heard agency appeals, and non-jury merit and motion matters."
The following is Judge Kinard's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Mary Whitaker v. Catawba Timber Company, Court of Common Pleas, Kershaw County, South Carolina (81-CP-28-159), decision May 3, 1982, Judge Walter J. Bristow, Jr.; The Plaintiffs in 1967 agreed to accept an increasing yearly rental for a 66 year term for about 260 acres and further executed an option to purchase for $15,000.00 any time after the 20th year increasing 5% per year from the 21st year through the 66th year of the lease term. Plaintiff filed suit seeking cancellation of the lease and option after I attempted to exercise the option to purchase for the company. Basically, the Plaintiff alleged inadequacy of consideration and that the option violated the rule against perpetuities. I paid the consideration into court and counterclaimed, seeking specific performance. After a trial without a jury before Judge Bristow, he executed an order granting specific performance and we immediately closed the purchase. A group of cases do hold such a clause violative of the rule and that issue was novel to South Carolina; however, my research had found the majority rule to hold favorable in similar circumstances, including a then recent Georgia decision involving a landowner, a paper company and a 60 year lease. Catawba Timber is a subsidiary of Bowater and many thousands of acres were under option under similar leases. House counsel for Bowater advised me that based on my research, they ascertained that their options in several states would possibly be held to violate the perpetuities rule in those states and they accordingly exercised all their options to purchase rather than risk litigating the issue again which, of course, as sole counsel, found the case to be significant.
(b) Foxwood, a Limited Partnership v. Town of Kershaw, 80-CP-20-10, Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County, decision July 14, 1980, Judge George Coleman; The Town of Kershaw refused to permit an apartment project to connect its water and sewer facilities after earlier granting permission. The suit was for a writ of mandamus and also sought injunctive relief alleging basically that the city was estopped, that water hook ups were ministerial functions and could not be arbitrarily withheld, and that quasi-zoning by granting of withholding water taps denied equal protection. Judge Coleman ordered the Town to furnish the services. The Town filed Notice of Appeal, which was eventually dismissed in early 1981. Incidentally, our clients then sought issuance of permits and the Town refused, resulting in our filing suit seeking damages and a contempt order against each council person. Prior to hearing on the contempt matter, the Town agreed to cooperate and we filed an Order of Dismissal in June of 1982, with the apartment project finally commenced in late 1982 and completed. I feel this case to be significant in that it again shows that if you persevere, elected officials will be compelled to perform their legal duty, and will acknowledge that they are also under the law.
(c) The State v. McKinley Thomas, Murder Indictment, Trial in Richland County, South Carolina; This was a criminal case about 25 years ago when Theodore Byrd and associates marched two Kershaw County deputies off I-20 near Elgin, killed Officer Potter and severely injured a fellow officer. The case was tried by Solicitor John Foard before Judge Grimball just before the Solicitor's defeat to Jim Anders. The trial was widely publicized and took a week to try. I spent at least one month working on that unpopular court appointed defense, including many trips to Columbia, and never received any compensation, as the defense fund was exhausted when claim was filed, as I recall. The trial was complex, many attorneys were involved, including the Richland County defense group. I served as Chief Counsel for this defendant and examined every witness and argued to the jury. We successfully overcame the old "hand of one is hand of all" argument in the face of previous knowledge brought out in the trial that Byrd had killed another officer the previous night with the defendant and others in attendance and also that all defendants were holding guns on the officers when Byrd started shooting. The jury found the defendants, except Byrd who had pled guilty, not guilty of murder and other related charges, finding guilt only of larceny of the officers' pistols, as I recall. Overcoming the Solicitor's vigorous presentation and the legal issues presented make the case appear significant to me. My jury arguments, since I felt the defendants should be found guilty, against the hand of one theory was my most trying moment in my career and while I did not falter during the argument, I honestly never felt that a not guilty verdict was within the real of possibility and I took no pride in that verdict when received, but did learn to rethink some of my previous conceptions of how juries arrive at verdicts and feel that my trial skills were helped by my participation in that apparent hopeless decision.
(d) Helen Best, et al. v. L.L. DeBruhl, Court of Common Pleas, Kershaw County, South Carolina; I was chief counsel in this case, ably assisted by the late Judge Clator Arrants and Senator Donald Holland, decided over 25 years ago, which involved suit by the Plaintiff against the then Sheriff of Kershaw County alleging false imprisonment and violation of various civil rights statutes growing out of the Sheriff's arrest of three middle age ladies from the Bethune area on alleged drug possession. A reliable informant advised the Sheriff that the ladies who were under surveillance had certain drugs in their possession and where they were to be. The Sheriff picked up the ladies and brought them to the jail and asked if his wife could search them (this was before we had any female officers in the County) to which they consented, provided they could first use the bathroom, which consent was then given (our Sheriff was then younger and not as experienced). Obviously, the subsequent search uncovered no controlled substances. The case was difficult to defend as some procedures were not properly followed and the Sheriff refused to identify his informant or permit us to present other drug related evidence damaging to the Plaintiffs, earlier obtained by his force. The case was tried before Judge Wade Weatherford and resulted in a verdict for the Defendant. The case seems significant in that it was widely publicized and the favorable verdict tended to discourage frivolous suits locally against elected officials; in fairness, we would have been pressed to have won the case had suit been filed in Federal Court due to the minor procedure violations mentioned above, the Plaintiffs' attorneys permitted us to paint a damaging portrait of their clients by innuendo, which would probably not have been permitted in Federal Court. (e)
(e) Hovis v. Wright, Fourth Circuit, January 10, 1985, 84-1128. This was a bankruptcy matter where I filed a school teacher in bankruptcy and claimed as exempt from bankruptcy proceeding, the State's retirement contributions of my teacher/debtor, which amount at that time exceeded $8,000.00. Judge Davis, on motion of the Trustee and hearing, ruled that the Trustee could reach the State retirement fund. I appealed and Judge Perry for the District Court held that the Trustee could not reach the funds. A subsequent appeal was taken to the Fourth Circuit, where it was held that the funds could not be reached. This case was very important since not only my individual teacher, but all State employees were affected by the outcome, and I don't know the exact number but about 40 State employees' retirement benefits were riding on the outcome of this decision at the time of the final adjudication. I did not actually appear before the Fourth Circuit as I asked the Attorney General to intervene since the State's interest appeared great and they graciously furnished counsel. I did file a brief, but did not appear before the Fourth Circuit."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Kinard's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Kinard is a qualified and highly regarded judge. The committee approved of his continued service on the circuit court bench.
Judge Kinard is married to Kay Livingston Davis. He has three children: Kay Marie Kinard, 34, housewife; Audrey Kinard Smith, 33, teacher; John E. Kinard III, 29, Asst. VP for First Palmetto Savings Bank.
Judge Kinard reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Kershaw County Bar Association (President 1967);
(b) South Carolina Bar Association;
(c) American Bar Association;
(d) American Judicature Society;
(e) Fellow - South Carolina Bar Foundation;
(f) John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court (President 1998);
(g) American Judges Association;
(h) South Carolina Association of Circuit Court Judges."
Judge Kinard provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce (Former President);
(b) Camden Country Club (Former President);
(c) Camden Sertoma Club (Former President);
(d) I was a member of Kershaw Lodge #29 but withdrew in good standing several years ago;
(e) Member of a dance club (resigned in 1992 - unable to attend dances);
(f) Snipe Club;
(g) Also a contributing member to various charities, e.g. S.C State Museum, Fine Arts Commission, Riverbanks Zoo, etc."
Judge Kinard further provided:
"I have held court in 38 counties and have always moved dockets without, I feel, unduly pressuring attorneys or litigants. I was head of the first Bar sponsored Settlement Week, which success has assisted the Bar in moving toward ADR in many actions. I was the first Presiding Judge over the State Grand Jury - have qualified three (3) of the State Grand Juries, and served as Presiding Judge of the State Grand Jury for over two (2) years and am currently alternate. I managed the pilot ADR project in Florence County for one year as Chief AD Judge and currently manage ADR as Chief AD Judge in Richland County, the other pilot county. Two (2) years of service as Chief Administrative Judge (Criminal) in the Fifth Judicial Circuit and over three (3) years as Chief Administrative Judge (Civil) in the Fifth Judicial Circuit where I am currently serving as Chief Administrative Judge (Civil), has prepared me for virtually any matter and presiding in a high media area has opened my service to full public scrutiny.
Additionally, while in private practice I prepared for my clients, my firm and other attorneys untold agreements, including complex wills, trial briefs, complex trust agreements, partnership documents, corporate documents, complex leases, timber sales agreements, proxy statements, shopping center and apartment project leases, restrictive covenants, tax free exchanges, buy and sell agreements, mergers, sale of assets, Chapter 11 and 13 plans, decrees in virtually every equity and family court type proceeding and am unaware of any problem with any drafted document, many of which served as models for the local bar."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Knobel meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Knobel was born on May 18, 1948. He is 52 years old and is a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Judge Knobel provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Knobel.
Judge Knobel 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 Knobel reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Knobel 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 Knobel 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 Knobel to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Knobel described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) As both a practicing attorney and a family court judge, I have attended, annually, a series of continuing legal education (CLE) programs and workshops, with an emphasis on those programs which have focused on family law. I am current with all of my CLE requirements.
(b) As a family court judge, I have attended Judges' School, all annual judicial conferences and all annual family court judges' conferences, including every mandatory judicial CLE program.
(c) In January 2000, with the approval of the Chief Justice, I was an attendee at the first annual conference of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, held in Phoenix, Arizona. I am in the process of initiating a juvenile drug/intervention court in Anderson County."
Judge Knobel reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I was a participant on a four-member panel of family court judges at a December 3, 1999, family law CLE seminar in Columbia, South Carolina. Our primary topic related to issues of child custody and visitation."
Judge Knobel reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Knobel did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Knobel did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Knobel has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Knobel was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Knobel reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Knobel further provided, "I was formerly the chairman of the Anderson Area Transportation Study Committee (ANATS). This was an appointed position. I have never held, nor run for, a public elective office."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Knobel appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Knobel appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Knobel was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Judge Knobel reported his legal experience since graduation from law school as follows:
"Prior to my formal admission I served as a counsel to the South Carolina Joint Legislative No-Fault Insurance Study Committee. I resigned from this position in mid-December 1973, to return to Anderson, South Carolina, to begin a law practice as an associate in the law firm of Chapman & Lowery (V. Laniel Chapman, Esq., and Harold R. Lowery, Esq.).
I remained an associate in this law firm from the first of January 1974, until May 1, 1975, at which time I formed a law partnership with Kenneth M. Mattison, Esq., in Anderson, South Carolina (Mattison & Knobel).
Mr. Mattison and I remained law partners until December 1983, at which time we amicably dissolved our partnership, and I then became a sole practitioner.
On May 6, 1998, I was elected by the State Legislature to become a family court judge for the Tenth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina, to complete the unexpired term of my predecessor, J. Franklin McClain. The term expires on June 30, 2001. I closed my law practice effective June 26, 1998.
During my years of practicing law, I had a general trial practice which included participating in trials at the various court levels. In prior years I would also perform real estate closings and handle probate and criminal matters. I also had a Social Security disability practice and a workers' compensation practice. For a period of 5 - 7 years immediately prior to my becoming a family court judge, the majority of my practice gravitated towards family law, with this area consuming approximately seventy (70%) percent of my law practice."
Judge Knobel reported that he has held the following judicial positions:
"(1) I was the Anderson Municipal Court judge from 1979 until 1984, sharing these duties with my then law partner, Kenneth M. Mattison. We were appointed to this position by the Anderson City Council. The municipal court handled only criminal matters (misdemeanors, including traffic violations) which occurred within the Anderson city limits. The maximum sentence we could impose at that time was a fine up to $200.00 or imprisonment up to 30 days (we could sentence in the alternative). As the city judge, I also had the duties of a magistrate for offenses occurring inside the Anderson city limits. We were empowered to issue arrest and search warrants, set bonds, and conduct bond and preliminary hearings. The Anderson Municipal Court did not hear any civil cases.
(2) I am currently a family court judge for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, having been elected to that position by the State Legislature on May 6, 1998. I was elected to complete the unexpired term of my predecessor, J. Franklin McClain, with my term commencing on July 1, 1998, and expiring on June 30, 2001. The family court is a court of limited jurisdiction, with its authority being both derived from, and limited by, statute. The family courts of this State hear an array of cases related to domestic relations, juvenile justice, and abuse and neglect of minor children."
Judge Knobel listed his most significant orders as follows:
"(a) Tirado v. Tirado, S.C. Ct. App., Opinion No. 3150 (filed: April 10, 2000) (published opinion). Brief description: Issues - contempt of court, and reimbursement to the wife for monies paid the former husband in military disability pay. The final orders were affirmed on appeal by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Richland County case.
(b) Caperton v. Caperton, No. 1998-DR-37-208. Brief description: Issues - final divorce with the primary issues focused on the equitable division of substantial assets owned by the husband, with an issue involving the transmutation of those assets. Oconee County case.
(c) Childers v. Childers, No. 1998-DR-04-1001 and No. 1999-DR-04-700. Brief description: Issues - the primary issue related to child visitation. Anderson County case.
(d) Walker v. Walker and Roach, No. 1996-DR-04-498. Brief description: Issues - contempt of court, including the unauthorized attempted sale of a marital asset to a third party. Anderson County case.
(e) Vitek v. Vitek, No. 1998-DR-07-143. Brief description: Issues - this was a two-day trial in Beaufort County, involving an array of issues including the equitable division of substantial marital assets, alimony, and child support. One of the more interesting issues involved a determination as to whether the husband's long-term disability benefits constituted a marital asset subject to equitable division. To my knowledge this case is under appeal, and has not been settled by the litigants. Beaufort County case."
Judge Knobel reported: "The Anderson Municipal Court judgeship was a part-time position. Consequently, during my tenure (1979-1984), I remained in the private practice of law. As a family court judge, I have had no other employment."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Knobel's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found that "Judge Knobel meets if not exceeds all of the requirements of the evaluative criteria."
Judge Knobel is married to Catherine Maria Calvo Knobel. He has two children: Lauren Blair Knobel, 19; and Andrew Benson Knobel, 16.
Judge Knobel reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Anderson County Bar Association; Secretary (1974-1975); Vice-President (June 1995-June 1997); President (June 1997-June 1998);
(b) South Carolina Bar Association;
(c) South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges."
Judge Knobel provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Anderson Country Club (I resigned my membership in 1998); Formerly on the Board of Directors;
(b) Communities-in-Schools of Anderson, Inc., board member (current)."
Judge Knobel further provided:
"During my tenure as a family court judge I have endeavored to be fair to the litigants and attorneys appearing before me; and I have attempted to reach correct decisions on cases which were supported by the evidence and testimony presented.
I would hope that any party-litigants, including attorneys, who have appeared before me these past two years have left my courtroom convinced they received from me a fair hearing of their dispute."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. McGee meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. McGee was born on February 14, 1965. He is 35 years old and a resident of St. Matthews, South Carolina. Mr. McGee 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 1991.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation revealed questions of appropriate ethical conduct by Mr. McGee.
The investigation revealed two grievances filed against Mr. McGee during the course of his practice. One grievance was filed regarding Mr. McGee's representation in an appointed matter. The complainant was concerned that his case was not being dealt with in a timely manner by Mr. McGee. Mr. McGee responded to the Commission that at the time of the appointment, he was about a month away from trial in a capital case, to which he was also appointed. Mr. McGee explained that he had made arrangements to see the complainant/client after the capital trial and had made other necessary contacts and filings to move the case along. The complainant/client then filed a complaint that his case was not receiving proper attention. Mr. McGee visited the complainant/client and the complainant/client withdrew his complaint. The Commission on Lawyer Conduct dismissed the complaint.
The second grievance involved an allegation of conflict of interest against Mr. McGee and his law partner, Mr. John Felder. Mr. McGee had undertaken representation of a grandmother against her daughter for the custody of the grandchild. According to Mr. McGee, his firm had filed for an emergency ex parte order to take custody of the child, which was granted by the Family Court, in addition to the summons and complaint that was served on the defendant. Upon service, the defendant's lawyer brought to Mr. McGee's attention the conflict of interest issue. Approximately twelve years earlier, Mr. Felder had briefly represented the mother in a divorce case involving the same child and custody issues. Mr. McGee explained to the Commission that he was not aware of the former representation and, at that time, Mr. Felder did not remember having represented the mother. Mr. McGee and the defendant's counsel agreed to have the matter presented to the Family Court Judge for determination as to whether or not Mr. McGee should remain involved in the case. The Judge recused Mr. McGee and his law firm from the case. A subsequent complaint was filed regarding the matter. The Commission on Lawyer Conduct dismissed the complaint with a finding that there was no unethical conduct.
The Commission expressed concern that Mr. McGee felt that it was appropriate that the Family Court Judge make the decision on the recusal issue instead of making that decision voluntarily. The Commission raised concerns regarding judicial recusal, especially in cases where parties would be represented by members of Mr. McGee's law firm or in cases that would raise questions of loyalty to former clients. Mr. McGee expressed to the Commission, presuming he was family court judge, that if one of his former law partners was trying a case before him, he would let the opposing counsel know that he formerly practiced with the other attorney and then inquire if of counsel if there was a problem. Mr. McGee said, "I believe the rules do allow for there to be a waiver if all the parties agree. I think if I disclosed that to you then it is up to you to ask me whether you believe - do you have a reason to ask for my recusal. If it is solely for the reason that I've been in law practice with these gentlemen, if it's a time period that I believe that needs to go by and there's no other reason behind it, in most cases I don't think that I would recuse myself. However, if there's something else there that brings an issue, any reasonable issue as to my impartiality, then of course I would recuse myself."
Mr. McGee testified that he had asked several friends to make contact with legislators on his behalf. The Commission found this to be in contravention of Section 2-19-70(C) and Rule 24 of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. Mr. McGee explained to the Commission that, "If I made an error, it was to err innocently. I believe that it was okay to have persons, third persons be able to tell local legislators that I in fact was a candidate or tell them about my credentials, as long as they did not seek any pledge of support, and I did not ask anyone to do that. I know it's impermissible." Mr. McGee further said that, "I believe the last part of the statute says nothing in here will keep the candidate from being able to tell his qualifications and his candidacy to members of the General Assembly and that's why I believed that I could do that." Counsel for the Commission reiterated that the rules specifically say there can be no third party notification. Counsel also informed the Commission that the rule additionally states that if the candidate knows of any solicitation to further himself he must inform the Commission of that activity. The Commission is also required to include in its screening report any evidence or fact regarding solicitation of pledges attempted in violation of state law or screening commission rules. Upon extensive investigation by the Commission, the Commission found that only several friends had been asked to contact legislators and that, in fact, no contacts with legislators had been made. The Commission also found that Mr. McGee brought this matter to the attention to the Commission and has cooperated extensively with the Commission in its investigation. Under these limited circumstances and because of Mr. McGee's cooperation, the Commission found that Mr. McGee substantially complied with Commission Rules and statutory requirements.
Mr. McGee reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. McGee 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. McGee to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. McGee described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a) Family law;
(b) General practice;
(c) Trial advocacy.
Mr. McGee reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education
programs.
Mr. McGee reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. McGee did not reveal evidence of criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. McGee did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. McGee has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. McGee 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. McGee reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. McGee appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. McGee appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. McGee was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.
Mr. McGee gave the following account of his legal experience:
(a) 1991-1992 Associate, Felder & Prickett, St. Matthews, S.C.;
(b) 1992-1995 Associate, Felder, Prickett & Mizzell, St. Matthews, S.C.;
(c) 1995-1997 Junior Partner, Felder & Prickett, St. Matthews, S.C.;
(d) 1997-Present Partner, Felder, Prickett & McGee, LLP, St. Matthews, S.C.;
(e) 1993-Present Partner, Felder & Prickett Title Insurance Agency, St. Matthews, S.C.
Mr. McGee reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: Infrequent except as to Office of Hearings & Appeals, SSA ;
(b) State: Almost weekly."
Mr. McGee reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 20%;
(b) Criminal: 20%;
(c) Domestic: 60%."
Mr. McGee reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 25%;
(b) Non-jury: 75%."
Mr. McGee provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. McGee's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) State v. Roger Dale Johnson, death penalty case in Calhoun County, 1996. I was appointed to represent the defendant as second chair to Thomas P. Culclasure, but conducted the majority of the penalty phase trial work. The conviction and death penalty sentence were recently upheld by the S.C. Supreme Court. This case is currently under a petition for cert. to the U.S. Supreme Court on an issue specifically preserved for appeal by myself at trial. This case was instrumental in my legal development because of its complexity, scope, and importance. Due to my involvement in this case, I have been exposed to trial pressure that many lawyers never experience, and I am more attuned to evidentiary and procedural matters as well as case law. Having the experience of trying a death penalty case makes me confident that I can handle any matter that could come before me as a Family Court judge.
(b) Jose Contreras was injured in a motor vehicle accident, which resulted in the amputation of his entire right leg. I was able to secure a total settlement of $990,000.00 for Mr. Contreras through wide variety of sources, each of which fought hard to not pay. This case involved a contested worker's compensation component and a very complicated underinsured motorist question coupled with trucking law that finally was appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals before being settled. It took over four years to complete this client's case. We received settlements from five different entities. This case taught me to persevere when looking for avenues of recovery.
(c) Golini v. Bolton, 482 S.E.2d 784 (S.C. App. 1997). In this case I won the right for my client to probate a copy of a will. This case was heavily contested, but I was successful at each level in having the will probated. The case is now one of the leading cases concerning the doctrine of animo revocandi and the proof required to overcome this factual presumption. My work in this case is important because it demonstrates my ability to think analytically in an area (probate law) in which I really had little background. The law seemed to go against my client, but I was able to apply the facts to the law and demonstrate that my client could successfully overcome the presumption of fact that a lost will meant the testator destroyed it with an intent to revoke.
(d) Mitchell v. Dodoo, (S.C. Ct. App. Unp. Op. No. 95-UP-167). In this case, I represented Mr. Mitchell, a father seeking custody of his son. The father, while married, had an affair that resulted in the birth of the child over which he sought custody. The mother, who was from Ghana, had left the child with the father shortly after his birth to move to the Washington, D.C. area. After two years, she returned and kidnapped the child. This case taught me that sometimes the law must move fast to protect a child. I was able to obtain an ex parte order to have the child returned to South Carolina where the mother then contested custody. Because of my swift actions, the child was safely returned home under a temporary custody order within a few days of his removal by the mother and all litigation took place in South Carolina. From this case, I also learned to stand by my position. The Guardian ad litem in this case changed her custody recommendation in the courtroom after hearing a child psychologist testify. I was able to effectively use the expert's testimony to show the child's attachment to his father and surroundings that caused the guardian to change her custody recommendation to the father.
(e) State v. Patrick Jackson, murder trial in Orangeburg County, 1999. I represented the defendant in this case currently under appeal. This case is significant because it involved the legal theory of the hand-of-one is the hand-of-all.
(f) State v. Malcolm Jeffcoat, I tried this case in 1999 with my law partner, John G. Felder. Our client, Mr. Jeffcoat, was charged with criminal sexual conduct with a minor (5 counts) and lewd act (5 counts). He was found guilty on four counts of each charge. The victim was a five-year-old step granddaughter of the defendant. The victim was around three years old at the time of the alleged crimes. My duty in this case was to cross-examine the little girl during the competency hearing and at trial. This case helped me develop cross-examination skills."
The following is Mr. McGee's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a) Mitchell v. Dodoo, Unp. Op. No. 95-UP-167, (S.C. App. 1995), family court appeal;
(b) Golini v. Bolton, 487 S.E.2d 784 (S.C. App. 1997);
(c) Lott, P.R. Estate of Lula S. Morris v. Bovain, Unp. Op. No. 96-UP-019, (S.C. App. 1996)."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. McGee's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee did not recommend Mr. McGee due to concerns relating to his ethical fitness and experience.
Mr. McGee is married to Judy Hicks McGee. He has two children: Matthew Tucker McGee, age 5; William Cooper McGee, age 2.
Mr. McGee reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;
(b) American Bar Association;
(c) Calhoun County Bar;
(d) Orangeburg County Bar;
(e) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association."
Mr. McGee provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Board Member, Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce;
(b) Member and stockholder, Calhoun Country Club;
(c) Deacon, finance committee vice-chairman, youth Sunday school teacher, worker and committee member, First Baptist Church, St. Matthews, S.C."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge McGowan meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge McGowan was born on February 4, 1952. He is 48 years old and is a resident of Laurens, South Carolina. Judge 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 Judge McGowan.
Judge 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.
Judge McGowan reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge 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.
Judge 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 Judge McGowan to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge McGowan described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Prior to election remained current with continuing legal education. Since my practice was a general one, I attempted to attend seminars which would be helpful in the areas of worker's compensation, civil trial practice, family law and rules utilization.
(b) Since election have attended all mandatory judicial seminars and conferences. I have accumulated numerous excess hours."
Judge McGowan reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"July 12, 2000, spoke at Orientation School for New Family Court Judges."
Judge McGowan reported that he has published the following:
"Law School: Assisted Professor Jon P. Thames in writing Dreher, A Guide to Evidence Law in South Carolina, 1979 Edition."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge McGowan did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge McGowan did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge McGowan has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge 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:
Judge McGowan reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge McGowan reported the following public service:
"Commissioner of Public Works, December 1994 through May 1996; appointed to fill the unexpired term of Marshall W. Abercrombie, deceased November 23, 1994."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge McGowan appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge McGowan appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge McGowan was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979.
Judge McGowan gave the following account of his legal experience:
"Prior to my election on February 10, 1999, I practiced law at the same location and in the same practice my entire career. The practice was a general, walk-in practice involving family law, real estate, personal injury and criminal law. Until June of 1994, I practiced with my father-in-law, Marshall W. Abercrombie, who founded the practice. He died November 23, 1994."
On February 10, 1999, I was elected Judge, Family Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat # 1. I have served continuously since."
Judge McGowan provided the following list of most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) DiBenedetto v. DiBenedetto (99-DR-24-659): This divorce action involved the incompetence a party and how the same affected each party's ability to pursue a divorce. It also involved the assertion of the privilege against self incrimination, the adverse inference derived therefrom and it's application, per Griffith v. Griffith, 332, SC 630, 506 S.E.2d 526 (Ct. App. 1998) to bar one from seeking relief;
(b) Smith v. Smith (99-DR-04-1545): This divorce action was completely settled with the exception of the issue of alimony. The case provides a nice utilization of the alimony factors;
(c) Rich v. Rich (99-DR-30-351): This custody action involved the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. It was determined that both South Carolina and Florida had jurisdiction over the matter. However since Florida had a closer connection with the child, his family and at least one of the contestants and that greater evidence was available in Florida concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships, I determined that Florida was the appropriate forum for the determination;
(d) DSS v. Duncan (99-DR-46-222): This abuse and neglect case involved a determination regarding a "person responsible for a child's welfare" and a determination whether sexual abuse occurred. Applying the rationale of SCDSS v. Forrester, 282 SC 512, 320 S.E.2d 29 (SC App 1984), I determined the person to be responsible for the child's welfare;
(e) Waters v. Hunsucker (98-DR-42-2591): This divorce action involved initially a determination of whether a common law marriage existed. The order gives a nice explanation of the law in South Carolina regarding common law marriages with a determination in this case that one did not exist."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge McGowan's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge McGowan is married to Sadie Lee Abercrombie McGowan. He has two children. Joseph, age 21, studying for the MCAT; and Marshall, age 16.
Judge McGowan reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Laurens County Bar Association 1979-1999, former president;
(b) South Carolina Bar 1979-2000."
Judge 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;
(c) Laurens Academy Board of Directors, Chairman 1994-1997."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Morehead meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Morehead was born on September 6, 1946. He is 54 years old and is a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Morehead 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 Morehead.
Judge Morehead 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 Morehead reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Morehead 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 Morehead 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 Morehead to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Morehead described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) For the past five years, I have been the Family Court Representative on the Commission for Continuing Legal Education and Specialization.
(b) 2000 - In May 2000, coordinated the educational component of the Family Court Judges Conference and received 6 hours credit.
(c) In January 2000, received 3 hours credit for a seminar sponsored by the Family Law Section at the Mid-Year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar.
(d) 1999 - In January 1999, received 3 hours credit for attending the Family Law Section of the Mid-Year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar. Also received 3 hours credit for attending the Business Valuations Seminar at the Mid-Year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar.
(e) In May 1999, received 5.2 hours credit for attending seminars at the Family Court Judges Conference.
(f) In June 1999, received 3 hours credit for attending a seminar sponsored by the Children's Committee and the South Carolina Bar Foundation through the South Carolina Bar.
(g) Also in June 1999, received 3 hours credit for attending a seminar sponsored by the Family Law Section at the South Carolina Annual Bar Convention.
(h) In August 1999, received 3 hours credit for attending a Family Law Seminar at the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention.
(i) In August 1999, received 7.2 hours credit for attending seminars at the Annual Judicial Conference.
(j) In December 1999, received 6 hours credit for attending a seminar sponsored by the South Carolina Bar Association dealing with Family Court Bench/Bar Conference and update.
Total for 1999 - 33.5 hours (Only 15 hours mandatory.)
(k) 1998 - In January 1998, received 5.25 hours of credit for attending seminars involving the Circuit and Family Court Judges for Administrative Purposes sponsored by Court Administration.
(l) In January 1998, received 3 hours credit for attending seminars sponsored by the Family Law Section at the Mid-Year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar.
(m) In March 1998, received 10 hours credit for attending seminars at the Governor's Conference on Youth Crime.
(n) In May 1998, received 6 hours credit for seminars attended at the Family Court Judges Conference.
(o) In June 1998, received 3 hours credit for attending seminars sponsored by the Family Law Section at the South Carolina Annual Bar Convention.
(p) In August 1998, received 15.75 hours credit for attending seminars involving the Community and Restorative Justice Training through the Conference of Family Policies.
(q) In August 1998, received 8.25 hours credit for attending seminars at the Annual Judicial Conference.
(r) In August 1998, received 3 hours credit for attending the seminars involving Family Law at the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention.
(s) In November 1998, received 6 hours credit for attending the seminar sponsored by the South Carolina Bar Family Court Bench/Bar Conference.
(t) In December 1998, received 5.25 hours for again attending a seminar for Chief Administrative Judges for the Circuit and Family Court sponsored by Court Administration.
Total for 1998 - 65.5 hours (Only 15 hours mandatory.)
(u) 1997 - In January 1997, received 5.75 hours credit for attending a seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes sponsored by Court Administration.
(v) In January 1997, received 3 hours credit for attending a seminar on Alternative Dispute Resolution at the Mid-Year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar. Also received 3 hours credit for attending a seminar sponsored by the Family Law Section at the Mid-Year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar.
(w) In March 1997, received 7.25 hours credit for attending seminars at the Governor's Conference on Youth Crime.
(x) In April 1997, received 4.75 hours credit for attending a seminar on Alternative Dispute Resolution Pilot Program Workshop.
(y) In June 1997, received 5.25 hours credit for attending a seminar for Chief Judges for the Circuit and Family Court sponsored by Court Administration.
(z) In June 1997, received 3 hours credit for a seminar at the Family Law Section of the South Carolina Annual Bar Meeting. Also received 1.5 hours credit in a seminar dealing with Quality of Life and Dealing with Difficult People at the South Carolina Bar Convention.
(aa) In August 1997, received 8 hours credit for attending seminars at the Annual Judicial Conference.
Total for 1997 - 59.25 hours (Only 15 hours mandatory.)
(bb) 1996 - In January 1996, received 3 hours credit for attending a seminar of the Family Law Section at the Mid-Year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar.
(cc) In May 1996, received 5.5 hours credit for attending a seminar dealing with drug and alcohol use in pregnancy issues for legal professionals.
(dd) In June 1996, received 7.5 hours credit for attending seminars at the Annual Family Court Judges Conference.
(ee) In June 1996, received 3 hours credit for attending seminars by the Family Law Section of the South Carolina Annual Bar Convention.
(ff) In August 1996, received 8.25 hours credit for attending seminars at the Annual Judicial Conference.
(gg) In December 1996, received 6 hours credit for attending the Family Court Bench/Bar Update Conference sponsored by the South Carolina Bar.
Total for 1996 - 33.25 hours (Only 15 hours mandatory.)
(hh) 1995 - In January 1995, received 3 hours credit for attending a seminar sponsored by the Family Law Section at the Mid-Year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar.
(ii) In January 1995, received 3.5 hours credit for the Task Force on Justice for All at the Mid-Year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar.
(jj) In May 1995, received 6.5 hours credit for attending seminars on Representing Children as Guardians ad Litem and the Family Court Bench/Bar Conference sponsored by the South Carolina Bar.
(kk) Also in May 1995, received 6.25 hours credit for attending seminars on Representing Defendants in Child Abuse and Neglect Actions.
(ll) In June 1995, received 6.25 hours credit for attending seminars at the Annual Conference of Family Court Judges.
(mm) In June 1995, received 3 hours credit for attending seminars sponsored by the Family Court Section and the South Carolina Bankruptcy Lawyers at the Annual Bar Convention.
(nn) In August 1995, received 5 hours credit for attending seminars at the Annual Judicial Conference.
(oo) In November 1995, received 6 hours credit for attending the Family Court Bench/Bar Conference sponsored by the South Carolina Bar.
Total for 1995 - 39.5 hours (Only 15 hours mandatory.)"
Judge Morehead reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) From 1976 until 1983, taught Business Law as an instructor at Francis Marion University.
(b) In November 1991, organized a Family Law Seminar for the South Carolina Bar which dealt with such issues as financial declarations, bankruptcy, judicial ethics, judicial temperament, properly handling criminal actions, abuse and neglect actions along with a legislative and case law update. Additionally served as moderator of the seminar.
(c) In March 1992, served on the seminar faculty for a Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Seminar discussing the topic of How to Properly Handle a Temporary Hearing.
(d) In August 1992, served as a guest lecturer at the National Child Support Enforcement Association's Convention in Orlando, Florida, and discussed issues with properly setting child support under newly structured guidelines and, more particularly, handling the deviations when dealing with multiple families, under employed parents, negotiated agreements and extraordinary expenses.
(e) In August 1994, spoke at the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention on How to Better Prepare Young Lawyers for Trial Litigation in Family Court.
(f) In October 1994, spoke at a 2-day seminar at the South Carolina Solicitor's Association Annual Conference which dealt with Family Court prosecutors handling detention and waiver hearings.
(g) In May 1995, served on the seminar faculty for the Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Seminar dealing with Child Abuse and Neglect Cases and presented a topic pertaining to effective advocacy, civility and professionalism - A View From the Bench.
(h) In August 1997, at the request of Court Administration, spoke at the Annual Judicial Conference on the Rules dealing with Alternative Dispute Resolution as they pertained to Family Court and also spoke to the Family Court Judges on how to prepare proper temporary orders.
(i) In December 1997, served on the seminar faculty for the Bar Association's Continuing Legal Education Seminar discussing Pet Peeves regarding Family Court Practitioners and Family Court Judges as collected by a survey from the Bench and Bar.
(k) In May 1998, spoke at the Annual Family Court Judge Conference on How to Properly Handle Pro Se Cases.
(l) In May 1999, spoke at the Annual Family Court Judges Conference on How to Properly Handle Pre-Trial Matters and Detention Hearings.
(m) In May 2000, organized the entire educational component of the Annual Family Court Judges Conference which dealt with a round table discussion of frequent problems that arise in Family Court and other interesting areas dealing with How to Properly Utilize Your Computer, Judicial Standards and Ethics, and a presentation from the Youth Law Center in Washington, DC, along with a Legislative Update.
(n) In June, 2000, spoke at the South Carolina Annual Bar Convention dealing with Alternative Dispute Resolution - Mediation in Family Court."
Judge Morehead reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Morehead did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Morehead did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Morehead has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Morehead 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 Morehead reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Morehead reported that his military service record consists of the following:
"Spent two years on active duty as an officer in the United States Army from June 1968, through May 1970, obtaining the rank of First Lieutenant. After active duty, spent four years in the Standby Reserve and received my Honorable Discharge on June 20, 1974."
Judge Morehead reported that he has served in the following public offices:
"Previously served as a Commissioner of Elections for the City of Florence. Was appointed in November 1983, but resigned in 1985 after being elected Family Court Judge."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Morehead appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Morehead appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Morehead was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Judge Morehead gave the following account of his legal experience:
"Joined the Law Firm of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough in Columbia, South Carolina as an Associate in 1973 and remained there for three years practicing in all courts in this state with a general focus on defense litigation surrounding personal and property injuries, products liability and Worker's Compensation.
In 1976 moved to Florence, South Carolina, and became a Partner in the Law Firm of Swearingen and Morehead, remaining there until June 1985. Had a general practice doing both plaintiff's and defense litigation in state Civil Court, Federal Court and Family Court.
Was elected a Family Court Judge for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit on April 10,1985, and began serving on June 19, 1985."
Judge Morehead further provided: "Upon the retirement of Chief Judge William Howell from the Court of Appeals, the Chief Justice appointed me to serve on the Court of Appeals from January 2000 through June 2000."
Judge Morehead reported the following are his five most significant orders/opinions:
"(a) Sandra Jean Prevatte v. Harry Prevatte; A case dealing with Common Law Marriages and the removal of an impediment to establish a common law marriage. Additionally, there was an issue surrounding circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove adultery. The case was affirmed by the Appellate Court at 297 SC 345, 377 S.E.2d 114 (S.C. App., 1989).
(b) Kenneth W. Thornton, Jr. v. Pamela P. Thornton. (c)
(c) Editha Beck Poston v. Ody M. Poston; An extremely difficult contested custody case involving a parent who had a chemical dependency disorder.
(d) Katrina L. Walsh v. Kathy Ward, G. Greer Ward, Jr., et al.; A custody and termination of parental rights action.
(e) Elizabeth W. Harrison, Attendance Supervisor Florence School District One, Petitioner, In Re: Various Minors; In this case, the parents were contending the children were not going to school based on their religious belief and the teachings of their church. Extensive research was done revealing a precarious balancing test necessary. States do have the power to impose reasonable regulations concerning compulsory school attendance, however, the states are not totally free to overlook the fundamental right to exercise one's religion under the First Amendment."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Morehead's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Morehead to be "qualified for the reelection for the position of family court judge." The committee recommended and approved of this candidate without reservation.
Judge Morehead is married to Elaine Dempsey Morehead. He has two children: Arthur Eugene Morehead IV, 29, attorney; and Anne Meree Morehead, 25, teacher and doctoral candidate at University of Georgia.
Judge Morehead reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"Former member of Richland County Bar Association from 1973 to 1976, American Judicature Society, The South Carolina Defense Attorneys Association and the American Bar Association. Presently a member of the Florence County Bar Association and the South Carolina Bar Association. With the South Carolina Bar Association, have served as Sixth District Representative, Young Lawyers Division, from 1978 to 1980; on the Lawyer Referral Committee from 1974 to 1980; on the Practice and Procedures Committee from 1980 to 1982 and the Commission of Continuing Legal Education and Specialization from 1992 to 2000.
In 1994 served as President of the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges and was previously a member of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts."
Judge Morehead provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Member of the American Legion serving on local, district and state committees;
(b) American Legion Palmetto Boys State for the past 38 years, serving as Director of the program from 1983 to 1999 (In 1999 received recognition from the National Commander of the American Legion for working with youth in the state of South Carolina);
(c) Member of the Pee Dee Area Citadel Club (past President);
(d) Member of St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church (past member of Parish Council and Chairman of School Board);
(e) Worked with Encore Theatre Company and the Florence Little Theatre on its Board of Directors;
(f) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association (in 1996 received the President's Award in recognition for assisting and beginning the Parent and Children in Transition Program in the state of South Carolina);
(g) Served as Chairman of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Juvenile Justice Youth Council (Chairman from 1997 to 1999);
(h) Served on the Governor's Juvenile Justice Task Force from 1997 to 1999."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Murdock meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Murdock was born on November 6, 1952. He is 48 years old and is a resident of Darlington, South Carolina. Judge Murdock 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 Judge Murdock.
Judge Murdock 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 Murdock reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Murdock 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 Murdock 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 Murdock to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Murdock described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"For the past five years, I have almost exclusively attended Family Court JCLE seminars."
Judge Murdock reported: "In 1996 I lectured at the South Carolina Solicitors' Conference on some newly enacted juvenile legislation."
Judge Murdock reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Murdock did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Murdock did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Murdock has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Murdock 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 Murdock reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Murdock appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Murdock appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Murdock was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.
Judge Murdock provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Immediately after graduating from law school, I clerked for Ratchford & Cooper, Attorneys at Law, until I completed the bar exam. Upon completion of the bar exam, I began practicing with Shand & Stanton in Hartsville, South Carolina (1983-1992). Our practice consisted primarily of debt collection, real estate and Family Court work, with a small amount of personal injury and criminal practice. I engaged in the general practice of law. I probably spent approximately fifty (50%) percent of my time on Family Court matters."
Judge Murdock reported the following judicial experience:
"1/1/86-6/25/92 Municipal Judge, Hartsville, SC Appointed, with jurisdiction over traffic and criminal offenses with a maximum possible sentence of 30 days or $200 fine.
1/1/89-7/1/92 Municipal Judge, Timmonsville, SC Appointed, with jurisdiction over traffic and criminal offenses with a maximum possible sentence of 30 days or $200 fine.
I served as a Special Referee at the request of attorneys Dan Causey and Billy Spencer in a 1992 case involving a dispute about the ownership of some farm equipment.
7/1/92-Present Family Court Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2, Elected."
The following is Judge Murdock's account of five of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) Wichman v. Wichman involved the equitable apportionment of a marital estate which exceeded $100,000,000. Most of the marital assets were rental real estate properties. The case was appealed and affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in an unpublished Opinion. Approximately 90 exhibits were introduced in evidence, including 21 financial statements which the parties submitted to lending institutions at various times in the marriage.
(b) Shaw v. Shaw involved the equitable apportionment of marital property. A substantial asset in this case was the stock of a closely held corporation. The corporation engaged in the building supply business. The husband's family operated the business before the marriage. The parties were married for a period exceeding 20 years. The critical issue was whether the stock was non-marital property or whether it had been transmuted and was now marital property subject to apportionment. The case was appealed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in an unpublished Opinion.
(c) Corley v. Corley; This Order resulted from a hearing on a motion to strike a request for affirmative relief and to impose other sanctions. One of the parties refused to answer questions during a deposition based on protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The other party argued that the deposed party, who refused to answer discovery questions which were relevant to equitable apportionment issues and the issue of divorce, should be denied affirmative relief and denied the right to testify at trial. There are no South Carolina cases directly on point on this issue.
(d) Glenn v. SCDSS; This Order resulted from an abuse and neglect matter and had two unique issues. DSS indicated this case of alleged abuse and had not filed an intervention or removal case in Family Court. First, there was a motion challenging Mr. Glenn's ability to file an action in Family Court seeking to have the case unfounded. (This is the first time I have ever heard of an alleged perpetrator filing such an action). Another Judge ruled on this motion. The second issue involved a request for sanctions against DSS under Rule 11 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and under the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Act. As a sanction, Mr. Glenn requested that DSS be required to pay his attorney's fees and costs.
(e) Ford v. Ford; This Order was temporary in nature. The couple bought two McDonalds franchises during their marriage. Initially after separating, the husband ran one store, and the wife operated the other. The wife filed a motion to prohibit the husband from participating in the operation of either restaurant during the pendency of the action. Affidavits were submitted which demonstrated that he was using poor management techniques, that their rights to continue as franchise operators were jeopardized by his actions and that McDonalds would not, under any condition, approve him as a sole franchise operator without his wife's participation in the operation of the business."
The following is Judge Murdock's account of all employment he has had while serving as a judge other than elected judicial office:
"Since 1996, I have been a one-third owner of an automatic car wash in Hartsville, South Carolina. I am the secretary/treasurer of the car wash and as such, my main responsibility is bookkeeping."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Murdock's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Advisory Committee found Judge Murdock to be "qualified for the reelection for the position of family court judge for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2. The committee recommended and approved of this candidate without reservation."
Judge Murdock is married to Lorraine Rector Murdock. He has two children: Jamie Rector Murdock, age 21, student; Jason Daniel Murdock, age 14, student.
Judge Murdock reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;
(b) Darlington County Bar Association;
(c) South Carolina Family Court Judges."
Judge Murdock provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Hartsville Masonic Lodge;
(b) Omar Shriner;
(c) Hartsville Lions Club - member at large."
Judge Murdock provided as additional information, "I have had the opportunity to participate in a wide array of life experiences outside the legal profession. While a student, I worked on peach farms, on highway road crews, at a sawmill and planer, in the construction business as a laborer, as a Pinkerton guard, as a service station attendant, as a street vendor selling peanuts, on a land surveying crew, and I cut and hauled pulpwood. I have taught school, coached and worked as an insurance agent for my livelihood before attending law school. I was married with one child when I attended law school and paid for the expenses of my law school education. I believe that all of these experiences enable me to understand and relate to the vast majority of people who appear before me as litigants."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Myers meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court Judge.
Judge Myers was born on January 17, 1939. He is 61 years old and is a resident of Sumter, South Carolina. Judge Myers provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1964.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Myers.
Judge Myers 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 Myers reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Myers 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 Myers 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 Myers to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Myers described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have completed 190.75 hours of approved JCLE Courses and seminars. To the best of my knowledge, I have attended practically all Family Law related seminars in our State over the past five years."
Judge Myers reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) Leader of round table discussion on various topics at 2000 Family Court Conference;
(b) Spoke on Advisory Committee on standards of Judicial Conduct at 1996 Judicial Conference;
(c) Lectured on Domestic Violence at school for new Family Court Judges (1994);
(d) Spoke on Alternate Dispute Resolution (Mediation) at SC Bar Mid Year Meeting (1994);
(e) Presented a talk in 1989 on "The Judicial Experience" in Lincoln, Nebraska at a seminar sponsored by Neb. DSS;
(f) Spoke at the 1991 Annual Convention of SCTLA. Topic was "Comments from the Bench;"
(g) I was responsible for coordinating and presenting a 2 day CLE seminar in Columbia on 11/17/88 & 11/18/88 entitled "A Practical Approach to Complex Issues and Evidence in the Family Court and Statutory Law Update."
Judge Myers reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Myers did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Myers did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Myers has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Myers 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 Myers reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Myers reported his prior appointments as follows:
"(a) Served by appointment on the City of Sumter Planning Commission from December 1964 to December 1971.
(b) Appointed as a member of Sumter County Commission for Higher Education on March 23, 1982 and served until just prior to my assuming the duties of Family Court Judge in June 1984."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Myers appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Myers appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Myers was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1964.
Judge Myers described his legal experience since graduation from law school as follows:
"Associate in law firm of Lee and Moise from 1963 through 1966. I became a partner in 1967 and thereafter the firm name was changed to Lee, Moise and Myers. I entered private practice in 1980. I was appointed as Master-In-Equity for Sumter County in September 1983, and served in that capacity until shortly before I assumed my duties as a Family Court Judge. General practice of law with emphasis on defense work, Real Estate, Probate and Corporate."
Judge Myers described his past employment as a judge as follows:
"I was appointed as Master-in-Equity for Sumter County on September 26, 1983, and served in that capacity until April, 1984. I was elected as a Family Court Judge on February 1, 1984 and assumed my duties on June 15, 1984. I have served continuously since then."
Judge Myers described five of his most significant orders or opinions as follows:
"(a) SCDSS v. Graham, et al.;
(b) Poole-Smith v. Poole;
(c) Morehouse v. Morehouse;
(d) McDuffie v. McDuffie;
(e) Glasscock v. Glasscock;
(f) SCDSS v. Humphreys, et al."
Judge Myers reported that he had never been an unsuccessful candidate for elective, judicial, or other public office.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Myers' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Myers to be "qualified for reelection for the position of family court judge for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2." The committee recommended and approved of this candidate without reservation.
Judge Myers is married to Adelaide Marks. He has three children: Marion Parker Myers, age 33, VP of Corporate Development for Trigon Insurance Co.; Leigh Dunbar Eddy, age 32, Housewife and Mother; and Louise Patterson Boylston, age 30, Attorney.
Judge Myers reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) SC Bar Association: Fee Dispute Resolution Board;
(b) Sumter County Bar Association: Executive Committee 1978-79;
(c) Board of Directors - Public Defender Corp. - 1970's."
Judge Myers provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Sunset Country Club;
(b) Alice Drive PTA."
Judge Myers further provided:
"The experience derived from my sixteen years on the bench will be invaluable in continuing to carry out my duties and responsibilities as a Family Court Judge. I was President of the Family Court Judges Council in 1991 and I have served as Chief Administrative Judge for the 3rd Judicial Circuit on three different occasions. In addition, I am currently serving as a member of the Judicial Council, a member of the Joint Commission on Alternate Dispute Resolution and a member of the Judicial Compensation Committee. I also have received a rating of excellent in every category during all of the SC Bar Judicial Evaluation surveys I have been involved in."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Riddle meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Riddle was born on December 30, 1958. She is 42 years old and is a resident of Irmo, South Carolina. Judge Riddle 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 Riddle.
Judge Riddle 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 Riddle reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Riddle 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 Riddle 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 Riddle to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Riddle described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"1995:
06-12-95 SCCA Orientation School for Family Ct. Judges, 33.00
06-21-95 SCCA Family Court Judge's Conference, 6.25
08-24-95 SCCA Judicial Conference, 8.00
09-29-95 SCB, SC Tort Law Bench/Bar Seminar, 6.00
1996:
06-26-96 SCCA Family Court Judge's Conference, 7.50
08-08-96 SCTLA SC Trial Lawyers Conference, 12.00
08-22-96 SCCA Judicial Conference, 8.25
10-04-96 SCB Marital Tax, 5.75
12-06-96 SCB Family Court Bench/Bar Update, 6.00
1997:
08-14-97 SCTLA SC Trial Lawyers Conference, 3.00
08-21-97 SCCA Judicial Conference, 8.00
12-05-97 SCB Family Court Bench/Bar Update, 6.00
1998:
05-21-98 SCCA Family Court Judge's Conference, 6.00
08-13-98 SCTLA SC Trial Lawyers Conference, 3.00
08-20-98 SCCA Judicial Conference, 8.25
1999:
01-22-99 SCB Family Law Section Midyear Meeting, 3.00
05-19-99 SCCA Family Court Judge's Conference, 5.25
08-19-99 SCCA Judicial Conference, 7.25
12-03-99 SCB Family Court Bench/Bar Update, 6.00"
Judge Riddle reported that she has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Riddle reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Riddle did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Riddle did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Riddle has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Riddle 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 Riddle reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Riddle appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Riddle appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Riddle was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.
Judge Riddle described her legal experience as follows:
"(a) Family Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit, 1995-present.
I hear cases on all matters within the jurisdiction of the family court.
(b) Kirkland, Dodson, Rush, and Riddle, 1988-1995. (c)
Partner in law firm primarily involved in the representation of parties in divorce actions (including issues of equitable division of property, alimony, child custody, child support, and visitation), representation of parties in custody litigation, representation of parties in adoption proceedings, representation of parties in child abuse and neglect matters, representation of juvenile criminal defendants in family court, and representation of children in child custody cases as their attorney/guardian ad litem. Other areas handled included the preparation of wills, estate work, personal injury, worker's compensation, and criminal defense.
(c) Special Assistant Solicitor, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Summer 1993.
Prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases for the State and the Department of Social Services on a part time basis. Duties included the preparation and trial of abuse and neglect cases against parents and other individuals accused of physical, emotional, educational and sexual abuse or neglect of children.
(d) Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Project of Richland County, 1988-1990.
Representation of abused and neglected children and their guardians in family court to ensure that the best interests of the children were protected; and further, that all actions taken by the Department of Social Services and other child protective agencies conformed to the law.
(e) Kirkland, Aaron, and Alley, 1986-1988
Associate in law firm with primary emphasis in divorce, child custody, child support, visitation, and related matters. Other areas handled included the preparation of wills, estate work, personal injury and criminal defense.
(f) Fifth Circuit Solicitor's Office, 1984-1986
Family Court Solicitor, 1985-1986. Assistant solicitor assigned exclusively to family court, handling all matters relating to the prosecution of juvenile criminal defendants and the prosecution of individuals accused of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse or neglect of children. Responsibilities included the preparation and trial of cases, decisions regarding the transfer of jurisdiction to General Sessions Court on serious, violent, or repeat offenders, trial of motions to transfer jurisdiction, trial of motions to detain juvenile defendants pending trial on serious, violent or repeat offenses, writing briefs and arguing appeals to the Court of General Sessions and the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Assistant Solicitor, 1984-1985. Prosecution of adult criminal defendants in Richland and Kershaw counties in General Sessions and Magistrate's Court for various criminal offenses. Responsibilities included the preparation and trial of cases, interviewing witnesses, drafting and arguing legal motions, formulating plea agreements, preparation of indictments, and advising local law enforcement agencies regarding legal issues, charging decisions, and collection of evidence."
Judge Riddle reported that she was elected to Seat 2, Fifth Judicial Circuit Family Court on June 12, 1995, and that she currently holds this position.
Judge Riddle reported that her five most significant orders or opinions are:
"(a) Barsaleau v. Konzny; 91-DR-40-3938; 96-DR-40-3522; 96-DR-40-2672;
(b) Landry v. Landry; 97-DR-32-2312;
(c) Hartley v. Hartley; 96-DR-06-0430;
(d) Rindfleisch v. Rindfleisch; 96-DR-40-0922;
(e) Corboy v. Corboy; 95-DR-40-4829."
Judge Riddle stated that she was an unsuccessful candidate for the Family Court bench in 1994 upon the retirement of the Honorable William Campbell of the Fifth Judicial Circuit.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Riddle's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Riddle is "a qualified and highly regarded judge." The committee approved of her reelection to the Family Court bench.
Judge Riddle is married to Charles Dayton Riddle III. She has three children: Charles Dayton Riddle IV, age 12; Coleman Kirkland Riddle, age 11; and Davis Cannon Riddle, age 8.
Judge Riddle reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar."
Commission's Findings: MAJORITY, QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED WITH CONCURRING OPINION--MINORITY, UNQUALIFIED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Sawyer meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Sawyer was born on April 7, 1948. He is 52 years old and a resident of Ridge Spring, South Carolina. Judge Sawyer provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Sawyer.
Judge Sawyer 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 Sawyer reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Sawyer 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 Sawyer 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 Sawyer to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Sawyer described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) Seminars at Mid Year meeting of S.C. Bar;
(b) Seminars at S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention;
(c) Attended all required seminars for the Judiciary."
Judge Sawyer reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I helped plan the agenda and coordinate the 2000 Family Court Judges' Orientation School. I also participated in the program on 7/10/00. I have spoken and lectured at the S.C. Trial Lawyers Association."
Judge Sawyer reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Sawyer did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Sawyer did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Sawyer has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Sawyer 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 Sawyer reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Sawyer provided the following as his military service experience:
"Honorably discharged on February 13, 1976, as a Sergeant from the S.C. Air National Guard after six years of service."
Judge Sawyer provided the following as his public service experience:
"I was elected as Mayor of Ridge Spring in August of 1983 and began serving as mayor on September 1, 1983. I was re-elected in 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1991 and served until being elected as Family Court Judge in 1992."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Sawyer appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Sawyer appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Sawyer was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.
Judge Sawyer provided the following account of his legal experience since his graduation from law school:
"General practice of law at Edgefield, South Carolina-1974-1976
Partner in general practice of law with Billy C. Coleman at Saluda, S.C., 1976-1992."
Judge Sawyer provided that he has had the following judicial experience:
"I was appointed as a Saluda County Magistrate on February 13, 1974, and reappointed on January 25, 1977. I served as Chief Magistrate for Saluda County- (criminal jurisdiction of $200.00 or 30 days confinement; civil jurisdiction not to exceed $1,000.00).
In May of 1975 I was appointed by the Town Council as Municipal Court Judge for the Town of Batesburg. I served in that capacity until September of 1982. (Criminal jurisdiction of $200.00 of 30 days confinement; civil jurisdiction not to exceed $1,000.00).
I am currently serving as Family Court Judge for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit."
The following is Judge Sawyer's account of five of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) South Carolina Department of Social Services vs. Cynthia Elizabeth Woods, et al., Op. No. 2000-UP-60. The Woods case involved extensive litigation concerning minimally acceptable care for children and when parental rights should be terminated.
(b) South Carolina Department of Social Services vs. Donny Ray Allen, Op. No. 99-UP-140. The Allen case dealt with issues such as ascertaining a large arrearage of child support and whether payment of that support could be barred by the Doctrine of Laches. The Court also addressed the issue of whether paternity could be contested 16 years after paternity was established by a prior court order.
(c) State vs. Robert Turner, trial date-July 17, 2000, Docket no: 2000 -JU-02-222. This case involved a Juvenile who was charged with disturbing schools and with threatening to damage and destroy property by use of an explosive device. The case received extensive pre-trial publicity and was covered extensively by the news media. The facts involved interpretation of existing laws and new laws that were codified at the last session of the General Assembly. Approximately 17 witnesses were called, and the Juvenile was adjudicated as delinquent at the conclusion of the hearing.
(d) David M. Miles vs. Laura A. Miles, Op. No. 98-UP-249. The Miles case addressed all issues of the marriage but dealt extensively with custody.
(e) Sandra Wannamaker vs. Greg B. Wannamaker, Op. No. 96-UP-375. The Wannamaker case was contested in every aspect and the trial lasted almost 3 days. The attorneys who litigated the case were extremely competent litigators, and the trial court was asked to rule on almost every issue that can result from any marriage."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Sawyer's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Sawyer was a qualified and highly regarded judge. The committee positively approved of his reelection.
Judge Sawyer is married to Sandra Faye Cato Sawyer. He has three children: Rebecca Catoe Sawyer, 20, college student; Bonnie Claire Sawyer, 18, student; Beth Ann Sawyer, 11, student.
Judge Sawyer reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Saluda County Bar;
(b) Tri-County Bar;
(c) South Carolina Bar."
Judge Sawyer provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Life long Member of Ridge Spring Baptist Church. Have served as deacon, church Moderator, Director of Youth Department, and Sunday school teacher;
(b) Member of the Ridge Spring Fire Department, currently serving as Secretary & Captain."
Judge Sawyer provided the following information relative to his service to the state and community:
"(a) Elected as Secretary - Treasurer - Family Court Judges Association in 1999, currently serving in that capacity;
(b) Appointed by Chief Justice as member of Family Court Judges Advisory Committee, served on that Committee since 1997;
(c) Board of Directors - Hallman-Scott, Inc.;
(d) Board of Directors - Carolina Health Center, Inc.;
(e) Recipient of Order of Palmetto - 6/30/85;
(f) Commended by Resolution of House of Representatives for community service, 7/10/85;
(g) Former member of Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (1978-1980);
(h) Resolution of Fee Dispute Board (Panel member for Eleventh Judicial Circuit);
(i) Attorney for Towns of Batesburg, Monetta and Ward;
(j) Board of Directors, Upper Savannah Council of Governments;
(k) Executive of Committee, Upper Savannah Council of Governments;
(l) Active member of pro-bono program;
(m) Past President, Ridge Spring-Monetta Jaycees, Recipient of Key Man Award on two occasions;
(n) Board of Directors, Saluda County Council on Aging;
(o) Board of Directors, Saluda County Department of Social Services;
(p) Board of Directors, South Carolina Municipal Association (1985-1988);
(q) Member, Saluda County Economic Development Board;
(r) Advisory Board, First Citizens Bank (Saluda Branch);
(s) Youth Baseball coach, Commission of Little Peach League;
(t) Commissioner of Youth Baseball League (1977)."
(u)
The Commission received an affidavit filed in opposition to Judge Sawyer's candidacy by a litigant who appeared before him. During the hearing before the Commission, the litigant and Judge Sawyer were afforded the opportunity to present evidence relating to the affidavit which included testimony from witnesses, a tape and transcript of the proceeding, and other written documents. Testimony in the hearing provided that the litigant who filed the affidavit was an accountant and that she was involved in a family court hearing before Judge Sawyer on a procedural child support issue. Testimony indicated the litigant made a comment to the opposing counsel while walking out of the courtroom at the end of the proceeding. According to the transcript of the proceeding, Judge Sawyer heard this comment and told the litigant to apologize to the attorney or go to jail. The litigant chose to go to jail. The litigant testified that she was charged with contempt and that Judge Sawyer yelled at her and was very demeaning. Testimony offered by court officials and the tape of the proceeding revealed that Judge Sawyer did not yell at or demean the litigant in the proceeding. The Commission heard testimony that the litigant was arrested and brought back before Judge Sawyer later to apologize to the attorney. She was found guilty of contempt, fined, and her sentence was suspended upon time served.
Although a majority of the Commission found Judge Sawyer qualified and determined that he did not yell at or demean the litigant, the Commission concluded that his conduct in this particular instance was an overreaction and seemingly a lapse in judgment for an otherwise outstanding jurist.
I believe the evidence received by the Commission during Judge Sawyer's hearing describes a situation all too common in today's Family courtrooms. Parties are terribly frustrated by the snail's pace of hearings over support and custody of children; in turn, judicial officers are confronted by parties who believe that the only manner in which to work out their disagreements over matters such as support and custody is through tenacious, gut-wrenching litigation. In this particular case, I believe that Judge Sawyer stepped into a hornet's nest where the parties and counsel had reached a boiling point over matters which, while very important, should already have been worked out through mutual accommodation and agreement of the parties and counsel. In fact, Judge Sawyer's participation was more in the way of procedural rather than substantive and it is unfortunate that he was the judicial officer who had to solve problems created by other parties and/or judges. I offer this as background, not to diminish the importance and gravity of judicial officers respecting the rights and considering the special circumstances of the litigants who appear before them, but to caution the General Assembly that our Family Courts are terribly overburdened and that they will become evermore so as long as Family Law counsel play the games of "Gotcha" and "Hide and Seek" rather than cooperating and seeking the best interests of children.
It is my firm conviction that Judge David Sawyer is a jurist firmly committed to the interests of those children appearing before him. He has an unassailed reputation of fairness and patience. In light of the instant case, one might say that he overreacted but I believe that it was his obligation to preserve the order and decorum of the courtroom and to not let the parties and their counsel take off into a tirade of "pointing fingers." Any problem I have with Judge Sawyer's actions is really a problem with our Family Court system in that the exigencies of Family Court service do not allow for Family Court judges to take extraordinary steps and measures to gauge the sincerity of litigants' motives. Rather than being able to determine whether parties are game-playing or simply frustrated by game playing by the other side, judges are relegated to running court by a stop watch so as to not overburden and delay their dockets. I believe that the blame lies with the system which is being held hostage by attorneys whose primary interests may be finances.
I am very thankful that Judge Sawyer is there to remember that children's interests are paramount.
I believe that the evidence given by the affiant demonstrates that Judge Sawyer reacted too strongly to the affiant's utterance in the courtroom to opposing counsel as they were leaving. Judge Sawyer should have warned the affiant against further comments especially in light of the nature of the case but instead he ordered her to apologize to opposing counsel or go to jail. She chose jail.
In a later hearing that day, the affiant made an apology and her counsel asked if she could forego jail service as she regretted her conduct and also asked that the record be purged of the offense as she would be going to seminary in the future and she did not want this on her record. Despite the fact that the affiant had a child at home who depended on this single parent, the judge lectured her that the only reason he was having a hearing that day was because of his respect for the lawyers.
Judge Sawyer then sentenced the affiant for contempt, requiring her to pay a fine in the amount of $250 and to serve a sentence of 10 days suspended to time served.
The complainant asserted that her comment to opposing counsel was at the conclusion of the hearing as they were leaving. This assertion seems to be corroborated by the record and the fact that the comment was very soft and seemed stated from across the courtroom away from the litigants and counsels' microphones. Her voice was not loud nor did it disrupt the proceedings. She showed disrespect for the opposing counsel, but I cannot agree that she exhibited gross disrespect for the court as the judge termed it in his order. Disrespectful conduct should not be tolerated and this opinion does not encourage tolerating that. However, the power of contempt should be used sparingly and in a corrective fashion to maintain order - not to simply punish. The court should also weigh the attending circumstances including the stress that the offending party is under.
In this case, the complainant was seeking action for nonsupport. The affiant related a history of failures by the natural father of the children to pay support. The case had become entangled in procedural issues of whether the case had been properly transferred from Lexington County to Richland County, and affiant had suffered hardship because of legal entanglements. In bringing an action for adequate support for the children, she again feared more delays and attorney fees over what seemed to her a legal entanglement of technicalities which translated into delay. The affiant only wanted to speak to say she could afford no more legal action if the matter was to be delayed. The affiant was denied an opportunity to speak. She had tried to stand up for her children and seemed so defeated. The affiant did not have the legal training to understand the limitations of the court. The court knew or should have known of her frustration or even afterwards factored that in. Instead, this Judge, in my opinion, heavy handedly crushed this woman by not warning her to cease comment but rather demanding that she apologize to the opposing counsel--not the court--or go to jail. In my opinion, this was a gross abuse of power. It calls into question the Judge's good judgment. In those trying and compressed circumstances, the Judge wanted the affiant to apologize to the very person she saw as destroying the chance for any timely relief on a technicality. Despite knowing all the facts even now, the Judge at his screening showed no remorse or regret over this and, in fact, said as a justification for his conduct that he had done this to one other person. While one incident like this should not be disqualifying, using the Judge's standard of zero tolerance that he used on the complainant, it would be. Using the Judge's own standard that he uses on others, I find him unqualified for continued judicial service. He should be as accountable for his actions as the ordinary South Carolinians should be in his courtroom. In order for the public to have respect for the system, this judge should be treated no better or worse than he treats everyday people.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Shuler meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Shuler was born on May 9, 1948. He is 52 years old and is a resident of Kingstree, South Carolina. Judge Shuler 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 Shuler.
Judge Shuler demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Shuler reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Shuler 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 Shuler 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 Shuler to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Shuler described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"Attended all mandatory seminars for Circuit Court Judges."
Judge Shuler reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"Spoke at CLE on two occasions - the most recent in January l999, on jury selection. Spoke at the May l999 judges' conference on death penalty (penalty phase of trial)."
Judge Shuler reported that he has published the following:
"Wrote a chapter on jury selection in Judge Ralph K. Anderson's book - Trial Techniques."
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Shuler did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Shuler did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Shuler has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Shuler was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Shuler reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Shuler reported that he has held the following public offices:
"(a) Eight years as City Recorder for the Town of Kingstree, SC, 1980-1988.
(b) Circuit Court Judge at Large, Seat No. 3, 1990-2000."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Shuler appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Shuler appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Shuler was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.
Judge Shuler reported his legal experience since graduation from law school as follows:
"1973-1974 general practice associated with Leonard B. Burgess, Kingstree, SC;
1974-1980 practice, criminal defense, plaintiff's, family, etc., Connor, Connor & Shuler, Kingstree, SC;
1980-1988 co-public defender for Williamsburg County;
1989-1990 deputy solicitor, Williamsburg County;
1983-1990 Brown & Shuler, general practice."
The following is Judge Shuler's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"The following are cases tried - no specific orders were issued in these cases but opinions were rendered by Supreme Court.
(a) State v. Ellis Franklin; Appeal from Williamsburg County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge; Heard by Supreme Court of South Carolina on September 21, 1994, Opinion No. 24190, Affirmed;
(b) The State v. Gene Raffaldt; Appeal from Kershaw County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge, Heard by Supreme Court of South Carolina January 17, l995, Opinion No. 24218, Affirmed;
(c) The State v. Ernest Roy Trotter; Appeal from Saluda County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge, Heard by Supreme Court of South Carolina on November 2, l994, Opinion No. 2289, Affirmed;
(d) City of North Charleston v. Janie M. Claxton and William L. Claxton;_Appeal from Charleston County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge, Heard by South Carolina Court of Appeals on March 23, l993, Opinion No. 2013, Affirmed;
(e) Oree B. Crosby, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leroy Crosby, Jr. v. Santee Electric Cooperative, Appellant, and Sumter Builders, Inc., Respondent; Appeal from Williamsburg County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge, Heard by South Carolina Court of Appeals on December 9, l993, Opinion No. 94-UP-036."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Shuler's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Shuler is qualified for the position of associate judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. The committee recommended and approved of this candidate without reservation.
Judge Shuler is married to Glenda Brown Shuler. He has two children: Jonathan Duane Shuler, age 27, employed by Santee Electric Cooperative; and Elizabeth Brown Shuler, age 24, employed by the Department of Mental Health.
Judge Shuler reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar;
(b) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Sims meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Sims was born on March 3, 1952. He is 48 years old and is a resident of Orangeburg, South Carolina. Mr. Sims provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1981.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Sims.
Mr. Sims 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. Sims reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Sims 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. Sims 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. Sims to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Sims described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a) courses in relation to family court issues;
(b) courses in relation to criminal court issues;
(c) courses in relation to personal injury issues."
Mr. Sims reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I lectured at a seminar on the Batson decision."
Mr. Sims reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Sims did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Sims did not indicate any evidence of current troubled financial status.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Sims 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. Sims is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Sims appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Sims appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Sims was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1981.
Mr. Sims described his legal experience since graduation from law school as follows:
"In 1978, I began my career with North Mississippi Rural Legal Services in Greenville, Mississippi. I was a staff attorney responsible for federal and state court. I practiced in the filed Title Seven Class Actions Employment Discrimination lawsuits, Sexual Discrimination lawsuits and other federal cases while in Mississippi. I appealed one case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and was successful. I was also responsible for handling divorce, custody and other domestic cases in the Chancery Court in the State of Mississippi. This was from 1978 to 1980.
I came to South Carolina as the managing attorney for Palmetto Legal Services in Orangeburg. I managed approximately twelve people, which included lawyers, paralegals, and secretaries. I was responsible for the supervision of the office and review of all the cases in the office. I filed federal lawsuits and state court actions in both the Family Court and the Court of Common Pleas. This was from 1980 to 1982.
In 1982, I began employment with the Solicitor for the First Judicial Circuit. My initial responsibility for the prosecution of juveniles in the three county area. I was also given the responsibility for the Department of Social Services cases involving Child Protection and the Adult Protection cases. My duties changed to prosecution in the Court of General Sessions. I was responsible for the prosecution of all major criminal cases in the office. I was involved with five or six capital case while a prosecutor. When the Solicitor retired, I was named the Acting Solicitor for the First Circuit. I was responsible for the prosecution of all criminal cases in the circuit. I was with the Solicitor's Office from 1982 to 1993 when I lost the election for the position. While with the Solicitor's Office, I opened my law office and only handled civil cases and domestic cases. This office was opened in 1985 and continues today. I appealed a criminal case to the Court of Appeals and argued the matter before the court and I have also argued a matter before the South Carolina Supreme Court.
In my private office, I am involved in major personal injury cases, domestic cases, and major criminal defense work. I was been involved in five capital cases as defense attorney.
I have been involved as a prosecutor and defense attorney with the prosecution of juveniles in the Family Court. In regards to abuse and neglect cases, I have been involved as a prosecutor and defense attorney. Since I graduated from law school and began practice in Mississippi, I have been filing and litigating cases in the Family Court which involved divorce, custody, equitable division of property, and adoptions. I believe that my experience as a prosecutor and defense attorney has definitely qualified me for the Family Court Judge and that I have been litigating cases since 1978 involving child custody, divorce, equitable division of property, and adoptions has given me the prospective that I need to be effective as a Family Court Judge."
Mr. Sims reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Federal: Once;
(b) State: Very Frequent."
Mr. Sims reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Civil: 25%;
(b) Criminal: 50%;
(c) Domestic: 25%."
Mr. Sims reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a) Jury: 80%;
(b) Non-jury: 20%."
Mr. Sims provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Sims' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) State v. Bayan Aleskey, capital murder second chair;
(b) State v. Sammy L. Stokes, capital murder first chair;
(c) State v. Sammy L. Stokes, second capital murder case first chair;
(d) United States v. Tammie M. Singleton, Federal Drug Case Southern District Illinois presently involved;
(e) Fogle v. Fogle, Family Court Orangeburg."
Mr. Sims reported that he ran for solicitor in 1993.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Sims' temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
"The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee recommends Thomas .R. Sims' election to the position of First Circuit Family Court, Seat One with reservations relating to his reputation among his peers ... and financial issues related to tax liens ...." The Judicial Merit Selection Commission in subsequent proceedings determined that Mr. Sims had satisfied the tax liens.
Mr. Sims is married to Edith McCord Sims. He has two children: Thomas Ray Sims, Jr., age 16; and Erin McCord Sims, age 15.
Mr. Sims reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Mississippi Bar;
(b) South Carolina Bar."
Mr. Sims provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Kappa Alpha Psi;
(b) Edisto Lodge # 39 Masons."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Smoak meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Smoak was born on July 25, 1959. He is 41 years old and is a resident of Walterboro, South Carolina. Judge Smoak 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 Judge Smoak.
Judge Smoak 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 Smoak reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Smoak 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 Smoak 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 Smoak to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Smoak described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"1995
6/12 SCCA Orientation School for Family Court Judges;
6/21 SCCFCJ SC Conference of Family Court Judges;
8/24 SCCA Judicial Conference;
9/29 SCB SC Tort Law Update;1996
5/15 SCOID Circuit Judges Spring Conference;
6/26 FCJA Family Court Judges Conference;
8/8 SCTLA Annual Convention;
8/22 SCCA Judicial Conference;
12/6 SCCA Family Court Bench/Bar Update;1997
1/3 SCCA Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes;
3/6 SCCFP Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;
6/27 SCCA Seminar of Chief Judges for Circuit & Family Court;
8/21 SCCA Judicial Conference;
9/14 NJC Survival Skills for the Domestic Relations Judge, National
Judicial College;
1998
1/9 SCCA Seminar of Circuit & Family Court Judges for Admin
Purposes;
1/22 13th Annual Criminal Law Update;
5/21 SCCA Family Court Judges Conference;
8/13 SCTLA Annual Convention;
8/20 SCCA Judicial Conference;
11/13 SCCA Family Court Bench/Bar;
1999
1/22 SCB Family Law Section Midyear Meeting;
5/10 SCCA Family Court Judges Conference;
8/5 SCTLA Annual Convention;
8/19 SCCA Judicial Conference;
12/3 SCCA SC Conference of Family Court Judges;
2000
1/21 SCB Mid Year Meeting;
5/3 SCCA SC Family Court Judges Conference."
Judge Smoak reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I taught the following paralegal courses for The Technical College of the Lowcountry: Estates; Family Law; Legal Bibliography; Litigation; Torts."
Judge Smoak also reported:
"I was on a panel for discussion at the South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar Conference, December 3, 1999. I have lectured at the local high school."
Judge Smoak reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Smoak did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Smoak did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Smoak has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Smoak 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 Smoak reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Smoak appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Smoak appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Smoak was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.
Judge Smoak gave the following account of his legal experience:
"(a) 1983 Law Clerk for Honorable William T. Howell;
(b) 1984 to 1995 General Practice with majority of work in Family Court;
(c) 1984 to 1993 and 1995 Prosecutor for child abuse and neglect cases for the Department of Social Services;
(d) 1984 to 1995 Public Defender for City of Walterboro;
(e) 1993 to 1995 Conflict Attorney for Colleton County Public Defender, including Juveniles;
(f) 1995 to present Family Court Judge, 14th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1."
Judge Smoak reported that he has held the following judicial office:
"Family Court Judge, 1995 to Present, 14th Judicial Circuit, Seat #1. This Court was created by statute."
Judge Smoak reported that the following are his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a) SCDSS v. Hernandez. Abuse Case/Use of translator at trial;
(b) Wahl v. Flaherty, Custody issue involving Grandparent versus Mother; (c)
(d) Nienow v. Nienow, Contested divorce case. Unpublished Opinion No. 99-UP-431; (e)
(f) SCDSS v. Holden, Grandparent versus parent custody case. Unpublished Opinion No. 97-UP-007; (g)
(e) SCDSS v. Cannon, et al., Abuse case. Unpublished Opinion No. 99-UP-432."
Judge Smoak reported he was an unsuccessful candidate for elective, judicial, or other public office in the following instance:
"In 1994, Family Court Race for Seat #2, 14th Judicial Circuit."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Smoak's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Smoak to be "a well qualified and highly respected candidate whose service and dedication to the State of South Carolina is beyond reproach." The committee wholeheartedly approved of Gerald C. Smoak, Jr.'s reelection.
Judge Smoak is married to Elizabeth Thompson Smoak. He has two children. Gerald C. Smoak III, age 13; and Caleigh Elizabeth Smoak, age 6.
Judge Smoak reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) Former Member of South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;
(b) South Carolina Bar Association;
(c) Colleton County Bar Association."
Judge Smoak provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Former Member Jaycees;
(b) Former Sertoma Member;
(c) Walterboro Chamber of Commerce Board Member, 1988-1991;
(d) REAL (Rural Entrepreneurship Action Learning) Member 1990;
(e) Assistant Baseball Coach, Colleton County Recreation Commission, 1992 to Present;
(f) Sponsor - Dixie Youth Baseball 1994 - 1995;
(g) Member of the Colleton Preparatory Academy School Board 1998 - Present;
(h) Member of Bethel United Methodist Church;
(i) Member of Governor's Youth Council."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Tunstall meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Tunstall was born on February 4, 1954. He is 46 years old and is a resident of Greenwood, South Carolina. Judge Tunstall provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Tunstall.
Judge Tunstall 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 Tunstall reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Tunstall 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 Tunstall 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 Tunstall to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Tunstall described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)Jun 2000 NJC, Current Issues in Family Law, San Francisco, CA
(b) Aug 1999 SC Bar Family Law Mid-Year Mtg
Aug 1999 SCTLA Annual Convention
May 1999 FCJA Family Ct. Judges Conference
Jan 1999 SC Bar Family Law Mid-Year Mtg
(c) Aug 1998 SCCA Judicial Conference
Aug 1998 SCCFP Community/Restorative Justice Training
Aug 1998 SCTLA Annual Convention
Jun 1998 SCCA Orientation School for New Family Ct. Judges
May 1998 SCCA Family Ct. Judges Conference
Mar 1998 SCCFP Governor's Conference on Youth
(d) Aug 1997 SCCA, Judicial Conference
Jan 1997 SDDLO Introduction to the Child Protection Reform Act of 1996
(e) Dec 1996 SCTL SCTLA Auto Torts
Oct 1996 SC Bar Marital Tax; The Other Three-Letter
Sep 1996 NBI Family Law in South Carolina
Aug 1996 SC Bar Domestic Practice
Aug 1996 SCTL Annual Convention
(f) Nov 1995 SC Bar Marital Litigation Update."
Judge Tunstall reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a) 1987-1993, Attorney Coach for the South Carolina High School Mock Trial Competition. Each year I taught Greenwood High School Students how to prepare and try a case for mock court competition. This included trial tactics, rules of evidence, and courtroom demeanor.
(b) 1996, taught the legal portion of the Constable Training Course at Piedmont Technical College. This course consisted of training in areas of criminal law.
(c) 1998, lectured on what newly elected judges should expect at the South Carolina New Judges School.
(d) 1999, lectured at the State Wide Bar Association on recent case law and ramifications."
Judge Tunstall reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Tunstall did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Tunstall did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Tunstall has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Tunstall 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 Tunstall reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Tunstall appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Tunstall appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Tunstall was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.
Judge Tunstall described his legal experience as follows:
"After graduation from Law School in December of 1979, I was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in May of 1980.
In May 1980, I opened my office as a sole practitioner. My practice was a general practice, including civil, criminal, and family court work. I was also the Public Defender for the Greenwood and Abbeville Family Courts.
In 1981, I was employed by the Law Firm of C. Rauch Wise as an associate. I also accepted a part time position as City Judge for Ware Shoals.
In 1982, I became a partner in the firm. The name of the firm was changed to Wise and Tunstall, Attorneys. I remained a partner in that law firm until July of 1997. The practice was general in nature, and is now approximately eighty (80%) percent domestic.
In 1997, I became a South Carolina Family Court Judge."
Judge Tunstall stated that he was elected to Seat 3 on the Eighth Judicial Circuit Family Court in July 1997.
Judge Tunstall reported that his five most significant orders or opinions are:
"(a) King v. King, 97-DR-42-734;
(b) Marone v. Horner, 96-DR-23-4266;
(c) Miller v. The Ward Law Firm, 99-DR-42-4737;
(c) Gault v. Gault, 98-DR-36-565;
(e) Nichols v. Justice, 98-DR-36-332."
Judge Tunstall reported, "I was part-time City Judge for Ware Shoals in 1983. My employer was the City of Ware Shoals. My job responsibilities included disposing of all City Charges brought by City Police Officers, issuing warrants, and setting bond on defendants."
Judge Tunstall stated that he has never been an unsuccessful candidate.
9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Tunstall's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Tunstall is married to Bridget Hawkins Tunstall. He has two children: Bess Victoria Tunstall, age 16; and Billy Alvin Tunstall III, age 12.
Judge Tunstall reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) South Carolina Bar Trial Lawyers Association 1991-1997;
(b) House of Delegates for South Carolina Bar 1991-1997;
(c) Resolution of Fee Disputes Board for Eighth Circuit 1991-1997;
(d) Family Law Section of South Carolina Bar 1991-1997;
(e) Chairman Eighth Circuit Youth Council 1998-present;
(f) Regional Vice President Family Court Judge Association 1999-pr."
Judge Tunstall provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) SC Law Enforcement Officers Association Sustaining Member until 1997;
(b) Main Street United Methodist Church Member 1959-present;
(c) Cambridge Academy Board Member until 1997;
(d) Greenwood Country Club."
Judge Tunstall additionally reported that he was a member of the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission from 1985-1988.
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Turbeville meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Turbeville was born on September 27, 1944. He is 56 years old and is a resident of Manning, South Carolina. Judge Turbeville provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2) Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Turbeville.
Judge Turbeville 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 Turbeville reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures in seeking this office.
Judge Turbeville 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 Turbeville 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 Turbeville to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Turbeville described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"1999
1/22/99 SC Bar, Family Law Section-Mid Year Meeting, 3.0;
1/23/99 SC Bar, Business Valuations Seminar-Mid Year Meeting, 3.0;
5/19/99 Family Court Judges Conference, 5.25;
8/5/99 SCTLA Annual Convention, 12.00;
8/19/99 SCCA, Judicial Conference, 7.25;
12/3/99 SC Bar, Family Court Bench/Bar Update, 6.00;
7/18-21/99 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Annual Meeting (Did not use for credit); 1998
3/5/98 Governors Conference on Youth Crime, 10.00;
5/21/9 Family Court Judges Conference, 6.00;
1/23/98 SC Bar, Family Law Mid Year Meeting, 3.00;
8/13/98 SCTLA Annual Convention, 14.50;
8/20/98 SCCA, Judicial Conference, 8.25;
11/6/98 SC Bar, Family Court Bench Bar Update, 6.00; 1997
3/6/97 Governors Conference on Youth Crime, 7.25;
6/27/97 Seminar for Chief Judges, 5.25;
8/21/97 Judicial Conference, 8.00;
12/5/97 Family Court Bench Bar Update, 6.00; 1996
1/27/96 SC Bar, Family Law Section / Mid Year Meeting, 3.00;
6/26/96 Family Court Judges Conference, 7.5;
8/8/96 SCTLA, Annual Convention, 3.25;
8/22/96 SCCA, Judicial Conference, 8.25;
12/6/96 SC Bar, Family Court Bench Bar Update, 6.00; 1995
1/13/95 SC Bar, Family Law Section/Mid Year Meeting, 3.00;
1/14/95 SC Bar, Task Force on Justice For All Meeting, 3.5;
6/21/95 Family Court Judges Conference, 6.25;
8/24/9 Annual Judicial Conference, 8.00;
11/5-10/95 NCJFC, Evidence in Juvenile and Family Court, 26.33;
11/17/95 SC Bar, Family Court Bench Bar Update, 6.00."
Judge Turbeville reported that he taught the following law-related courses:
"7/10-12/2000 As Chairperson of the Family Court Judges Advisory Committee, I assisted in Planning and Coordinating Orientation School for New Family Court Judges. Made presentations regarding "Pro Se Litigation" and "Agreements in Abuse and Neglect Cases;"
6/30/99 New Family Court Judges Orientation School: "Pro Se Litigation" and "Agreements in Abuse and Neglect Cases;"
5/30/99 Family Court Judges Conference presentation: "Evidence in Termination of Parental Rights Cases;"
12/11/98 Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative purposes: "Pro Se and Inmate Problems;"
5/21/98 Family Court Judges Conference: "Handling Pro Se Cases;"
8/21/97 Annual Judicial Conference: "Family Court Contempt Powers" (co-presenter);
1/27/97 Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes: "Pro Se and Inmate Problems."
Judge Turbeville reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Turbeville did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Turbeville did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Turbeville has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Turbeville 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 Turbeville reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Turbeville appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Turbeville appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Turbeville was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Judge Turbeville provided the following account of his legal experience:
"(a) Land, Turbeville, Parker & Reaves; 1977 to 4/1/92.
The practice was a general practice, and my practice generally included domestic relations, personal injury, worker's compensation, real estate, and probate matters.
(b) Family Court Judge; 4/1/92 to present."
The following is Judge Turbeville's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a) Belser v. Belser; Unpublished Opinion No. 2000-UP-513 (Ct. App. June 29, 2000); After a long term marriage the Wife was awarded permanent, periodic alimony, 50% interest in the marital home, 40% of Husband's vested retirement, and attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
(b) In the Interest of Robert R., Opinion No. 3165 (Ct. App., May 22, 2000). At a hearing on March 27, 1998, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion to admit polygraph evidence based on State v. Wright, 322 S.C. 253, 471 S.E. 2d 700 (May 28, 1996) holding that generally the results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible because their reliability is questionable. The Court of Appeals remanded for a hearing to determine whether polygraph results should be admitted under State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 515 S.E. 2d 508 (1999).
(c) Howell v. Howell, Opinion No. 2000-UP-213 (Ct. App., March 20, 2000). The Court granted the Wife custody, child support, alimony, and attorney fees. The Husband who appeared pro se at trial retained an attorney and appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed citing the case of Washington v. Washington, 308 S.C. 549, 419 S.E. 2d 779 (1992) for the proposition that where a civil litigant has no right to counsel the trial court is under no duty to determine whether the decision to proceed pro se is made knowingly and voluntarily.
(d) Burns v. Burns, et al., Opinion No. 99-UP-495 (Ct. App. October 11, 1999). The Court refused to terminate the parental rights of the biological parents who had maintained minimal contact with their child and provided minimal support to their child. Even in light of the minimal support and contact, the Guardian ad Litem did not believe termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
(e) Sari v. Sari, Opinion No. 99-UP-210 (Ct. App. March 29, 1999). The Court denied the Husband's request for a reduction in alimony and child support. The Court found that the Husband's earning capacity had not changed based on employment opportunities available to him, even though they were out of state. The Court of Appeals affirmed."
Judge Turbeville reported that he has not had any unsuccessful candidacies for elective, judicial, or other public office.
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Turbeville's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Turbeville to be "qualified for reelection for the position of Family Court Judge for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 3." The committee recommended and approved of this candidate without reservation.
Judge Turbeville is married to Dorthy B. Turbeville. He has two children: Ellen Patrice Turbeville, M.D., age 30, Pediatrician; and Ralston Wright Turbeville, Jr., age 23, Law Student, University of South Carolina.
Judge Turbeville reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a) S.C. Bar Association;
(b) National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges;
(c) American Judicature Society;
(d) S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges: Vice President 96-97; President 97-98;
(e) American Bar Association."
Judge Turbeville provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Pine Grove United Methodist Church, Turbeville, S.C.;
(b) USC Gamecock Club;
(c) USC Alumni Association;
(d) Wofford College Terrier Club."
Judge Turbeville further provided:
"I have been active in the S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges, having served as Vice President (1996-1997) and President (1997-1998). I have made several presentations at JCLE events for family court judges.
Since September 2, 1997, I have served as Chairperson of the Family Court Judges Advisory Committee. I have tried to limit my outside activities pretty much to family activities, church activities, and bar related functions."
Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Woods meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Woods was born on January 13, 1945. He is 55 years old and is a resident of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Judge 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 Judge Woods.
Judge 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.
Judge Woods reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge 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.
Judge 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 Judge Woods to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Woods described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I participated in over 100 hours of CLE courses during the last five years including a number of Family Law oriented courses. In 1995, I completed the Divorce Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution training and I am a South Carolina Certified Family Court Mediator. Since becoming a family Court judge, I have incurred 23 hours of JCLE courses. I participated in the South Carolina trial lawyers convention for two years, attended the 1999 state judicial conference, and the 2000 South Carolina bar midyear meeting."
Judge Woods reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I have appeared before numerous college and high school classes to talk on various aspects of the law and its practice. I also assisted in teaching a high school law course sponsored by the York County Bar Association."
Judge Woods reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Woods did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Woods did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Woods has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge 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:
Regarding his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating, Judge Woods reported: "My previous firm was not rated. My father's firm represented a clientele who were not exposed to Martindale-Hubbell and he felt that listing was not important to his practice but rather relied solely on his reputation."
Judge Woods described his military service as follows:
"August 1967-1975, Captain, United States Army Reserve, Inactive Reserve, Honorable Discharge."
Judge Woods reported that he has held the following public offices:
"(a) York County Rural Fire Commission: 1972-1982: Appointed by County Council;
(b) Rock Hill City Council: 1982-1994: Elected;
(c) York County Natural Gas Authority: 1995-March 1999: Appointed by Governor."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Woods appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Woods appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Woods was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970.
Judge Woods described his legal experience as follows:
"I joined my father's law practice on January 2, 1971, and we formed a partnership named Woods & Woods. This partnership terminated in December of 1999. (Although my father semi-retired in 1995 and was of counsel.) I assumed the trial practice in 1975-1977. The firm evolved from a contracts, probate, social security disability, and real estate practice into a primarily litigation practice while it continued to be a small general practice firm. From 1989 to 1999 I concentrated my practice in civil trials, both on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendants, including personal injury; criminal defense, and family law including juvenile defense. I continued to practice in Probate Court, before local boards and commissions, and had a limited practice in real estate contracts and closings. My practice ended upon my investiture on March 26, 1999, as a Family Court judge."
Judge Woods reported that he was elected to Seat 2 on the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court in 1999. He stated that the jurisdiction of the court "includes juvenile, truancy, divorce, name change, adoptions, domestic abuse, abuse and neglect."
Judge Woods reported that his five most significant orders or opinions are:
"(a) Rainey v. Pecke;
(b) DSS v. Stowe;
(c) Ingle v. Ingle;
(d) Caton v. Brown;
(e)
(e) Lowder v. Poole."
Judge Woods reported that he was unsuccessful in the following candidacies for elective, judicial, or other public office:
"Rock Hill District #3 School Board: September 1971: Three at-large seats available, 5th of 12 candidates.
Probate Judge for York County: 1994: Lost in primary."
(9) Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Woods' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Woods is married to Gale Teaster-Woods.
Judge 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."
Judge Woods provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a) Central Carolina Choices Steering Committee;
(b) Rock Hill Economic Development Corporation: Past Chairman;
(c) Rock Hill Kiwanis Club: Community Service Director for two years;
(d) Rock Hill Arts Council: Director, Treasurer, Vice President, President;
(e) Brigadier Foundation, The Citadel: Past President;
(f) The Citadel Alumni Association: Past Director, Life Member, Past member of the Executive Committee;
(g) Oakland Avenue Presbyterian Church: Member, Deacon."
Judge Woods additionally reported, "I know of no information which would negatively affect my candidacy."
The following candidates were found qualified:
Anderson, Georgia V., Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Anderson III, Ralph King, Administrative Law Judge Division, Seat 6
Armstrong, Robert S., Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Bartlett, Stephen S., Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Bonnoitt, Jr., H.E., Family Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Buchan, Mary E., Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Chewning III, Richard W., Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Cole, J. Derham, Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Creech, Wayne M., Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4
Edwards, Tommy B., Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Fraley, Jr., James F., Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Gable, Agnes Dale Moore, Family Court for the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Garfinkel, Paul W., Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Goldsmith, Brooks P., Family Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Goolsby, Jr., C. Tolbert, Court of Appeals, Seat 4
Jacobs, Rolly W., Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Johnson, Jr., R. Kinard, Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Jones, Anne Gué, Family Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Kinard, Jr., J. Ernest, Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Knobel, Barry W.,Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
McGee, Randall E., Family Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
McGowan III, Joseph W., Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Morehead III, A. Eugene, Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Murdock, Jr., Jamie Lee, Family Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Myers, Marion D., Family Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Riddle, Leslie K., Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Sawyer, Jr., C. David, Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Shuler, M. Duane, Court of Appeals, Seat 3
Sims, Thomas R., Family Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Smoak, Jr., Gerald C., Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Tunstall, Jr., Billy A., Family Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Turbeville, R. Wright, Family Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Woods, Henry T., Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Received as information.
The following was received and referred to the appropriate committee for consideration:
Document No. 2558
Agency: Department of Education
Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Sections 59-5-60 and 59-24-40
Principal Evaluation Program
Received by Speaker of the House of Representatives
January 9, 2001
Referred to Education and Public Works Committee
Legislative Review Expiration May 9, 2001
The following was introduced:
H. 3255 (Word version) -- Reps. J. Young, G. Brown, Harvin, J. H. Neal, G. M. Smith, Weeks, Allen, Allison, Altman, Askins, Bales, Barfield, Barrett, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Breeland, J. Brown, R. Brown, Campsen, Carnell, Cato, Chellis, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Easterday, Edge, Emory, Fleming, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Hayes, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kelley, Kennedy, Kirsh, Klauber, Knotts, Koon, Law, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Meacham-Richardson, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Riser, Rivers, Robinson, Rodgers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sharpe, Sheheen, Simrill, Sinclair, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stille, Stuart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Vaughn, Walker, Webb, Whatley, Whipper, White, Wilder, Wilkins, Witherspoon and A. Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND GIFFORD SHAW FOR THE VALIANT DISPLAY OF HEROISM HE EXHIBITED BY SUBDUING A DERANGED PASSENGER AND SAVING THE LIVES OF THE THREE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT PEOPLE ABOARD HIS BRITISH AIRWAYS FLIGHT FROM LONDON TO NAIROBI.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 2 (Word version) -- Senators Passailaigue, Setzler, Wilson, Fair, Gregory, Ravenel, Drummond, Holland, Saleeby, J. V. Smith, Land, Leatherman, Leventis, McConnell, Moore, Peeler, Courson, Giese, Matthews, Thomas, Patterson, McGill, O'Dell, Reese, Hayes, Elliott, Ford, Glover, Jackson, Martin, Mescher, Rankin, Ryberg, Short, Waldrep, Alexander, Hutto, Anderson, Branton, Grooms, Bauer, Richardson, Hawkins, Pinckney, Ritchie and Verdin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE LES EVANS ON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT AS HEAD FOOTBALL COACH AND ATHLETICS DIRECTOR AT AIRPORT HIGH SCHOOL, WEST COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 120 (Word version) -- Senator Elliott: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS OF THE LATE WILLIAM F. "BILL" DAVIS OF AYNOR IN HORRY COUNTY ON HIS PASSING AND EXPRESSING THEIR APPRECIATION FOR HIS LIFELONG DEDICATION TO THE SERVICE OF HIS FELLOW SOUTH CAROLINIANS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 3256 (Word version) -- Reps. Taylor, Knotts, Bales, Barrett, Bowers, J. Brown, Chellis, Gourdine, Hayes, Hosey, Klauber, Rhoad, Rutherford, Sandifer and D. C. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-1140, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEDUCTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL TAXABLE INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX ACT, SO AS TO ALLOW A THREE THOUSAND DOLLAR DEDUCTION FOR A RESERVE POLICE OFFICER AND TO PROVIDE THE QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO CLAIM THIS DEDUCTION.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means
H. 3257 (Word version) -- Reps. Cato, Tripp, Battle, Allison, Bales, Barfield, Barrett, G. Brown, Campsen, Cooper, Dantzler, Easterday, Edge, Fleming, Harrison, Kelley, Klauber, Knotts, Law, Limehouse, Lourie, Martin, Phillips, Rice, Robinson, Sandifer, Stuart, Taylor, Trotter, Webb, Wilder and Witherspoon: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 58, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LICENSURE OF MORTGAGE LOAN BROKERS SO AS TO PLACE THIS BOARD UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION, TO CONFORM THIS CHAPTER TO THE STATUTORY ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK ESTABLISHED FOR PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING BOARDS AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS MORTGAGE LOAN BROKERS.
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
H. 3258 (Word version) -- Reps. Kennedy, Allison, J. E. Smith, Askins, Bales, Bowers, J. Brown, Carnell, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Emory, Fleming, Hayes, Hosey, Howard, Lloyd, Lourie, McGee, McLeod, J. M. Neal, Ott, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Scott, Sharpe, Sinclair, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stille, Taylor, Walker, Weeks and Wilder: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GENERAL EXEMPTIONS FROM PROPERTY TAXES INCLUDING THE EXEMPTION OF A DWELLING HOUSE OF A VETERAN WHO IS DISABLED FROM A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DISABILITY BE SERVICE CONNECTED AND TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION OF THE TERM "PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED".
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means
H. 3259 (Word version) -- Reps. W. D. Smith, Wilkins, Harrison, Harrell, J. Brown, Townsend and Sharpe: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 8-13-1355 SO AS TO DEFINE AND REGULATE A PUSH-POLL AND PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary
H. 3260 (Word version) -- Reps. McGee, Barfield, Barrett, Bowers, Carnell, Coates, Parks, Sandifer, W. D. Smith, Taylor and Wilder: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-36-90, 12-36-110, AND 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SALES AND USE TAX ACT, SO AS TO EXEMPT BUILDING MATERIALS PURCHASED BY A NONPROFIT TAX EXEMPT ENTITY EXCLUSIVELY ORGANIZED AND OPERATED IN BUILDING AND SELLING SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES TO SELECTED BUYERS TO PROMOTE HOME OWNERSHIP AND TO EXCLUDE FROM THE DEFINITIONS OF "GROSS PROCEEDS OF SALE" AND "RETAIL SALE" THESE ITEMS WHEN WITHDRAWN FROM INVENTORY AND DONATED TO AN ENTITY TO WHICH THE ITEMS COULD BE SOLD SALES TAX EXEMPT.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means
H. 3261 (Word version) -- Reps. Knotts, Cotty, Harrison, Koon, Bingham, Huggins, Quinn and Stuart: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-11-720, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENTITIES WHOSE EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE STATE HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE PLANS, SO AS TO ADD THE RICHLAND-LEXINGTON AIRPORT COMMISSION.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means
H. 3262 (Word version) -- Rep. Rodgers: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-11-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUBSTITUTION OF A CANDIDATE WHERE A PARTY NOMINEE DIES, BECOMES DISQUALIFIED, OR RESIGNS FOR A LEGITIMATE NONPOLITICAL REASON, SO AS TO DELETE THE LANGUAGE "SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS CONFLICT" WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF LEGITIMATE NONPOLICITICAL REASON AND PROVIDE THAT AN APPEAL FROM AN ELECTION MUST BE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE AFFIDAVIT IS FILED STATING THE LEGITIMATE NONPOLITICAL REASON FOR WITHDRAWING AS A CANDIDATE.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary
H. 3263 (Word version) -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-11-370, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENGAGING IN CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO A LICENSE, SO AS TO DEFINE "ENGAGING IN CONSTRUCTION" AND TO REQUIRE THAT A LICENSED CONTRACTOR ENGAGE IN CONSTRUCTION IN THE EXACT LICENSED NAME; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-11-410, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LICENSE CLASSIFICATIONS AND SUBCLASSIFICATIONS SO AS TO DELETE "GLASS" AND "GLAZING" FROM THE SUBCLASSIFICATION OF "INTERIOR RENOVATION" AND TO ADD AND DEFINE "GLASS AND GLAZING" AS A SUBCLASSIFICATION OF "GENERAL CONTRACTORS SPECIALTY".
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
The following was introduced:
H. 3264 (Word version) -- Reps. G. M. Smith, Allen, Allison, Altman, Askins, Bales, Barfield, Barrett, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Campsen, Carnell, Cato, Chellis, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Easterday, Edge, Emory, Fleming, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Hayes, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kelley, Kennedy, Kirsh, Klauber, Knotts, Koon, Law, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Meacham-Richardson, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Riser, Rivers, Robinson, Rodgers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sharpe, Sheheen, Simrill, Sinclair, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stille, Stuart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Vaughn, Walker, Webb, Weeks, Whatley, Whipper, White, Wilder, Wilkins, Witherspoon, A. Young and J. Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND CLARKE BYNUM FOR THE VALIANT DISPLAY OF HEROISM HE EXHIBITED BY SUBDUING A DERANGED PASSENGER AND SAVING THE LIVES OF THE THREE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT PEOPLE ABOARD HIS BRITISH AIRWAYS FLIGHT FROM LONDON TO NAIROBI.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows:
Allen Allison Altman Bales Barfield Barrett Battle Bingham Bowers Breeland Brown, J. Brown, R. Campsen Carnell Cato Chellis Clyburn Coates Coleman Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Edge Emory Fleming Freeman Frye Gilham Gourdine Govan Hamilton Harrell Harrison Harvin Hayes Hines, J. Hines, M. Hinson Hosey Howard Huggins Jennings Keegan Kelley Kennedy Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Law Leach Lee Littlejohn Lloyd Loftis Lourie Lucas Mack Martin McCraw McGee McLeod Merrill Miller Neal, J.M. Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips Rhoad Rice Riser Rivers Robinson Rodgers Rutherford Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sharpe Sheheen Simrill Sinclair Smith, D.C. Smith, G.M. Smith, J.E. Smith, J.R. Smith, W.D. Snow Stille Stuart Talley Taylor Thompson Townsend Trotter Vaughn Walker Webb Weeks White Wilder Wilkins Witherspoon Young, A. Young, J.
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Thursday, January 11.
Mickey Whatley Chip Limehouse Gilda Cobb-Hunter Daniel Tripp Bessie Moody-Lawrence Seth Whipper Grady Brown Fletcher Smith Joseph Neal
DOCTOR OF THE DAY
Announcement was made that Dr. Capers Hiott of Sumter is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
"5.2 Every bill before presentation shall have its title endorsed; every report, its title at length; every petition, memorial, or other paper, its prayer or substance; and, in every instance, the name of the member presenting any paper shall be endorsed and the papers shall be presented by the member to the Speaker at the desk. After a bill or resolution has been presented and given first reading, no further names of co-sponsors may be added. A member may add his name to a bill or resolution or a co-sponsor of a bill or resolution may remove his name at any time prior to the bill or resolution receiving passage on second reading. The member or co-sponsor shall notify the Clerk of the House in writing of his desire to have his name added or removed from the bill or resolution. The Clerk of the House shall print the member's or co-sponsor's written notification in the House Journal. The removal or addition of a name does not apply to a bill or resolution sponsored by a committee."
Bill Number: H. 3174 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 GILHAM
Bill Number: H. 3168 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 GILHAM
Bill Number: H. 3139 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 GILHAM
Bill Number: H. 3138 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 GILHAM
Bill Number: H. 3133 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 GILHAM
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 LOFTIS
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 RICE
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 HAMILTON
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 EASTERDAY
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 DELLENEY
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 PHILLIPS
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 HARRISON
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 CHELLIS
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 SCARBOROUGH
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 HUGGINS
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 TRIPP
Bill Number: H. 3172 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
01/11/01 CATO
The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate:
H. 3198 (Word version) -- Reps. Carnell and Klauber: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE SCHOOL DISTRICTS 50 AND 51 OF GREENWOOD COUNTY TO CHARGE AND COLLECT INCIDENTAL FEES FROM PUPILS AND TO PROVIDE A WAIVER OF THESE FEES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
H. 3196 (Word version) -- Rep. Miller: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-5-1505, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SEASONS, TAKE AND SIZE LIMITS FOR SHAD, HERRING, AND STURGEON, SO AS TO CHANGE THE OPENING DATE FOR THE SEASON FOR TAKING SHAD IN A PORTION OF THE WINYAH BAY DRAINAGE SYSTEM FROM FEBRUARY 15 TO FEBRUARY 1.
Rep. PERRY moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.
At 10:25 a.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. KNOTTS, on behalf of the Lexington Delegation, adjourned in memory of former Representative Jarvis Klapman, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 1:08 P.M.