Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

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

TO:       The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM:   Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman

Judicial Merit Selection Commission
DATE:     January 15, 2002

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
Representative F.G. Delleney, Jr., Vice Chairman
Richard S. Fisher, Esquire
John P. Freeman, Esquire
Representative James G. McGee, III
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Senator James H. Ritchie, Jr.
Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Representative Fletcher N. Smith, Jr.

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 is 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

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

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.

Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues are no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question is 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.

A written examination of each candidate's knowledge of judicial practice and procedure is given at the time of a candidate's interview 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 placed each candidate 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 on 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.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's

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

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED WITH                       CONCURRING OPINION
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Abbott meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Abbott was born on January 1, 1943. He is 59 years old and a resident of Conway, South Carolina. Judge Abbott 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 Abbott.
Judge Abbott 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 Abbott reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Abbott 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 Abbott testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

The Commission found Judge Abbott to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Abbott described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   6/17/96   Orientation School for New Family Court Judges;

(b)   6/26/96   Family Court Judges Conference;

(c)   8/22/96   Judicial Conference;

(d)   5/9/97   Family Court Judges Assoc. CLE;

(e)   8/21/97   SCCA Judicial Conference;

(f)   10/21/97   HCBA Family Court Procedure & Substantive Law;

(g)   5/21/98   Family Court Judges Conference;

(h)   8/13/98   SCTLA 1998 Annual Convention;

(i)   8/20/98   SCCA Judicial Conference;

(j)   11/6/98   SCCA Bench/Bar Seminar;

(k)   1/22/99   S.C. Bar Mid-Year Meeting Family Law Section;

(l)   3/5/99   HCBA Family Court Seminar;

(m)   5/19/99   Family Court Judges Conference;

(n)   8/19/99   SCCA Judicial Conference;

(o)   3/3/00   HCBA Family Court Procedure;

(p)   5/3/00   Family Court Judges Conference;

(q)   8/3/00   SCTLA 2000 Annual Convention;

(r)   8/16/00   SCCA Judicial Conference;

(s)   10/5/00   HCBA Family Court Procedure;

(t)   1/26/01   S.C. Bar Family Law Section;

(u)   5/2/01   Family Court Judges Conference."
Judge Abbott reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Abbott reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Abbott was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's

Judge Abbott reported his previous military experience as follows: "9/66 to 9/72; South Carolina National Guard; E-5; inactive reserve; Honorable Discharge Service Number NG 25 203 674."

Judge Abbott also reported on any public office he has previously held: "I served on the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Conway from 1984 to 1986. This is an appointed position by the City Council."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Abbott appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Abbott appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Abbott was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1972.

Judge Abbott reported the following regarding his previous legal experience:

"1972-1975     Associated with my father, H.T. Abbott; shared an office with father until 1982;

1982-1996   Sole practitioner;

1996 - present     Family Court Judge for Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.

As an attorney, I had a general practice with a emphasis in the Domestic Relations area."

Judge Abbott reported his prior judicial positions: "I held the position of Municipal Judge for the City of Conway, South Carolina from 1977-1984. It is an appointed position by the City Council. The court's jurisdiction is limited to criminal offenses in which the maximum penalty of 30 day imprisonment or a fine of $200.

From 1996 to the present, I have been a Family Court Judge. It is an elected position by the S.C. General Assembly. The Family Court is of limited jurisdiction as set by statute."

The following is a list of Judge Abbott's significant orders:

"(a)   O'neal B. Bourne v. Leo Fancis Bourne, Jr., 521 S.E.2d 519, 336 S.C. 642;

(b)   Tammy Strichek v. Gregory Strichek, Unpublished Opinion No. 99-UP-641;

(c)   Anand B. Patel v. Nalina Raja Patel, Unpublished Opinion No. 2000-UP-653;

(d)   Donald Olsommer v. Jana Olsommer, et al., 97-DR-26-2616

(e)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Larry B. Basnight, 2001 WL 21309."

The following is a list of Judge Abbott's employment while serving as a judge other than elected office: "As set forth in #22, I was the Municipal Judge for the City of Conway, South Carolina for seven years. Additionally, at various times, I have acted as a Special Referee for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. The references are contractual in nature, but authorized by an Order of Reference by the Presiding Circuit Court Judge. The cases occurred over a two-year period on an infrequent basis. It was my responsibility to conduct the non-jury hearing, make evidentiary rulings and decide questions of law and fact as well as issue a final decision. All cases were referred by and were under the administrative supervision of the Administrative Judge for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit."

Judge Abbott further reported: "I was a candidate for Family Court Seat #2 of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; this occurred during the 1995 Legislative Session; I withdrew prior to the election on May 25, 1995."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Abbott's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The committee is of the opinion that Judge Abbott is qualified for the position of family court judge. As a result of its investigation and interview with Judge Abbott, the committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Judge Abbott is married to Jean Cox Abbott. He has two children: Hyde Taylor Abbott, age 32, and Anne Victoria Abbott Golson, age 28.
Judge Abbott reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Horry County Bar Association (Honorary)."
Judge Abbott provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Riverside Club;

(b)   Ducks Unlimited;

(c)   South Carolina Waterfowl Association;

(d)   Old Gunn Hunting Club;

(e)   Kingston Presbyterian Church."

The Commission did question Judge Abbott regarding his order in Patel v. Patel, which was reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court on October 26, 2001. Because the case was on remand to the family court, before proceeding with any questions regarding the case the Commission sought and received written confirmation from the Supreme Court that Judge Abbott would not engage in any further disposition of the Patel case. After careful questioning of Judge Abbott regarding the circumstances surrounding this ruling, the full Commission determined that the reversal by the Supreme Court did not affect Judge Abbott's qualifications to hold judicial office. However, two members of the Commission have filed a concurring opinion.

We write to concur in the opinion of the majority of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission regarding the qualifications of Judge Abbott for continued service on the Family Court bench. However, we do not join in the opinion of the majority for the reason that although he meets the minimum statutory test for qualification we do not believe that Judge Abbott should be reelected to the bench. This is an issue of such importance that each member of the General Assembly should be able to review the facts of his candidacy and reach their own informed decision regarding the merits on the floor.

The State's judiciary is an integral part of the fabric of our citizens' lives. The courts intervene generally only in the most dramatic and dire moments in people's lives. Charged with overseeing these functions are our State's judges. Given the significant impact that these judges play in the lives of South Carolinians, it is only right that we diligently perform our duty to elect judges and ensure that all people are treated with fairness and respect by those we elect. Judges are compensated very well and vested with enormous power because they are expected to perform at a higher standard than we expect of the average person, public employee, or public servant. It is the nature of their position of trust that they must be held to a higher standard for their professional and ethical conduct.

The General Assembly has only infrequent moments to review the conduct and actions of judges and determine whether their performance warrants further service on behalf of the State. Our stringent review of their actions sends a strong signal to the public and to the judiciary of how we think judges should comport themselves while in office. When we have an opportunity to give such direction and oversight we should

The primary issue surrounding Judge Abbott's candidacy is his handling of the case, Patel v. Patel. Unfortunately, Judge Abbott was unable to adequately explain his handling of the case because of his interpretation of the Judicial Canons so all that we have to base our decision on are the records of the case in the possession of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. The most significant issues are those surrounding custody, alimony, and removal of the children from this jurisdiction. While the legal efficacy of these decisions is better left to the appellate courts, we should base our inquiry on whether the litigants received a fair day in court and whether the judge abused the discretion entrusted to him under our law.

Our concern is that each of these issues raised the seminal issue of fairness. The Supreme Court wrote that in determining the issue of custody, the Guardian ad Litem did not conduct "an objective, balanced investigation. She did not afford each party a balanced opportunity to interact with her. Her method of evaluation created a high potential of bias towards the Husband." The Court found "[i]n fact, the family court explicitly stated that it placed a "great deal of reliance" on the GAL's report when deciding the custody issue." The Supreme Court concluded that the "GAL's actions and inactions so tainted the decision of the family court in this case as to deny Wife due process."

The second issue concerned the family court's awarding of alimony in the matter. The Supreme Court concluded that the family court overlooked several factors when it denied the Wife's request for alimony. The Court specifically noted the Wife's lack of employment history and earning potential, her educational needs to obtain adequate employment, her sacrifice of a salaried job to work in the family business, and her role as primary caretaker for the children. Each of these oversights by the judge denied the Wife alimony and impacted her negatively.

Finally, the judge allowed the Husband to relocate with children to California. After the Wife filed a Notice of Appeal on June 16, 1998, two weeks later, the Wife received a letter from the Husband indicating his intent to relocate the children to California. Judge Abbott heard the motion to relocate the children on August 19, 1998. On August 25, 1998, the judge issued a ruling allowing the children to move. The Husband then removed the children from the jurisdiction some time around September 6, 1998. The judge only issued a written order allowing the Husband to relocate on September 22, 1998, nearly one

We have considered the argument by some members of the Commission that what occurred in this case was an isolated incident that has not recurred during Judge Abbott's tenure on the bench and that he should not be punished for this single lapse in judgment. Unfortunately, we can take little solace in that argument. In this instance, it was only because the Wife had the necessary financial resources that she was able to ensure that she received justice by going through an extensive and expensive appeal process. We are also unsure whether this was, in fact, an isolated incident for Judge Abbott. To the contrary, we are sure only that this was the only incident for this litigant. This is the only appeal that we have seen regarding Judge Abbott. However, there could be an untold number of people that lacked the ability to correct problems at the trial level because of limited resources. This is evidenced based on the outcry that we and other legislators have heard in the Guardian ad Litem hearings. We know only that this litigant's only experience in our legal system was marred and that she has incurred significant loss and expense because of the judge's lapse. It is a time to make a stand, not to make excuses.

As legislators, we cannot prevent all of the ills that befall our citizens, but we must strive ardently to rectify and prevent those that we can. We must protect the great majority of South Carolinians who do not have the substantial resources of this litigant to pursue their rights in the appellate courts. We must ensure through our processes that justice is never denied to a single South Carolinian because of a lack of resources or because the judge was having a bad day or was in a rush. Our stringent review sends a signal to judges that they cannot have a bad day or a substantive lapse in concentration because of the dire consequences that this has for our citizens. We must put them on notice that they are held to a higher standard and that they must accept or reject the position knowing they will be scrutinized accordingly.

We are presented here with an opportunity to send a message not only as it relates to Judge Abbott but also to the entirety of the judiciary. As we have mentioned previously, the nature of the justice system requires that judges must be held to a higher standard of conduct. The public must have the utmost confidence that this is true and that we are, in fact, holding judges to that higher standard. The

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Anastopoulo meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Anastopoulo was born on October 10, 1963. She is 38 years old and a resident of Isle of Palms, South Carolina. Ms. Anastopoulo 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 1994.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Anastopoulo.
Ms. Anastopoulo demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Anastopoulo reported that she has made campaign expenditures in the form of stationery and postage for a letter of introduction sent to her local legislative delegation.
Ms. Anastopoulo testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. Anastopoulo testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

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

"(a)   I have complied with all requirements for Continuing Legal Education including attending numerous seminars on Ethics, Family Law, Civil, and Litigation areas.

(b)   I have also been a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and thus have attended numerous national seminars on products liability, medical malpractice, insurance, and other areas of litigation.

(c)   I have argued cases before all levels of trial courts including S.C. Court of Common Pleas, S.C. Court of Appeals, S.C. Supreme Court, U.S. Federal District Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, and U.S. Court of Claims; thus I feel very versed in all aspects of judicial proceedings at each level of the courts."
Ms. Anastopoulo reported that she has taught the following law-related courses: "I taught Business Law including a section on Procedural Law at Trident Technical College in Charleston, S.C. I enjoyed it greatly. The course included Historical Law explaining the evolution of Common Law and Statutory Law. Also, the course covered Procedural Law, Contracts, and Torts."
Ms. Anastopoulo reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Ms. Anastopoulo did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Anastopoulo did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Anastopoulo has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Ms. Anastopoulo was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Ms. Anastopoulo reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Ms. Anastopoulo described her legal experience as follows:
"North Carolina Prisoners' Rights Project- Associate -1992-1993.
This was my first legal experience upon graduation. I worked almost exclusively with Women in Prison counseling them in the area of Family Law to assist them to re-establish their families upon their release from prison. I left to marry my husband who is a lawyer in South Carolina.

Anastopoulo Law Firm, LLC - Partner-1993-present

I began my legal career in South Carolina in the area of Family Law handling almost exclusively Family Law matters. This included all aspects of Domestic Relations including Divorce, Custody, Adoption, Juvenile, Child Support, and Equitable Distribution. My practice expanded into Civil Litigation in 1998. I have handled every aspect of litigation from pleadings, discovery, trials and appellate work. However, I have continued to handle Domestic Cases as well."

Ms. Anastopoulo provided the following regarding her Family Court experience: "As stated above, I have handled all aspects of Family Court practice including divorce, equitable division of property, child custody, adoption, abuse and neglect and juvenile justice since I graduated from Law School in 1992. I have handled so many Family Law cases it would be difficult to describe each one. I have even argued a Family Law case before the S.C. Court of Appeals and the S.C. Supreme Court. I am well versed in these areas of the law and have continued to further my education in this area by attending Family Law seminars and updates."
Ms. Anastopoulo reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   once a month

(b)   State:     once a week"
Ms. Anastopoulo reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     45%

(b)   Criminal:   0%

(c)   Domestic:   55%"
Ms. Anastopoulo reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     35%

(b)   Non-jury:   65%"
Ms. Anastopoulo provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Anastopoulo's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Sharps v. Sharps, S.C. Supreme Court No. 99-188. This case involved alimony, termination of child support, and what constituted a "substantial and material" change in circumstances in a domestic case.

(b)   Gaskins v. Farm Bureau, et al., S.C. Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 3271. This case involved whether a third party could bring a tort action against an insurer for the acts of their adjusters in fraudulently procuring releases. The court agreed with me in that they could.

(c)   Porter v. Roper, et al.; Wheelhouse v. RBC Health Systems, et al., Memorandum Opinion No. 2001-MO-011. This case involved whether the tax exempt status under Internal Revenue Code was an objective criterion which bore a close nexus with the underlying legislative policy to preserve the resources of charitable organizations.

(d)   Pierce v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 2:98-398V. This case involved a claim for damages for a child under the Vaccine Act 42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-10 et al.

(e)   Stafford v. North Trident Regional Hospital, Case No. 98-CP-10-1656. Case currently awaiting decision from S.C. Court of Appeals. This case involves whether a hospital can be held liable for the acts of its independent contractor physician/surgeons for emergency surgery performed on patient."

The following is Ms. Anastopoulo's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Sharps v. Sharps.

(b)   Gaskins v. Farm Bureau, et al., S.C. Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 3271; Decided December 18, 2000.

(c)   Porter v. Roper Hospital Inc., et al.; Wheelhouse v. RBC Healthsystems, et al., Memorandum Opinion No. 2001-MO-011; Decided February 20, 2001.

(d)   Stafford v. North Trident Regional Hospital, Case No. 98-CP-10-1656; Case still pending before S.C. Court of Appeals.

(e)   Gupton v. Food Lion Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals, No. 99-1779 Decided July 2, 2001; unpublished opinion."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Anastopoulo's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Lowcountry Citizens Committee finds Constance A. Anastopoulo to be a qualified and respected candidate. The committee recommends Constance Anastopoulo's election to the position of Family Court Judge."
Ms. Anastopoulo is married to Akim A. Anastopoulo. She has two children: Rossi Akim Anastopoulo, age 6, and Hali Akim Anastopoulo, age 10 months.
Ms. Anastopoulo reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

(a)   Charleston County Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association.
Ms. Anastopoulo provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Daughters of Penelope, a non-profit organization dedicated to charitable service to the community. We operate and run Penelope House, a home for battered women and their children. We also collect canned food for the Homeless shelter in Charleston. We support an orphan in Cyprus, Greece through the Children's Fund. We are associated with Greek Orthodox.

President, 2001-present; Vice President, 1999-2001; Treasurer, 1996-1999;

(b)   Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church - my husband and I are active members of our church and participate in numerous charitable services through the church.

(c)   Outstanding Young American- I was recognized in 1997 as an Outstanding Young Woman of America for my contributions to the community."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Breeden meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service in the Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 13.

Judge Breeden was born on December 27, 1942. He is 59 years old and a resident of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Judge Breeden 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 Breeden.
Judge Breeden 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 Breeden reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Breeden 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 Breeden 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 Breeden to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Breeden described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   I have completed all the mandatory Judicial CLEs.

(b)   Three-week course in General Jurisdiction at National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada."

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Breeden 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 Breeden reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "unknown."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Breeden appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Breeden appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Breeden was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

Judge Breeden provided the following account of his experience since law school:

"1973-1978     Jenerette, Wheless, McInnis & Breeden - General Practice of Law with emphasis on Real Estate Law.

1978-1980     Assistant Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor.

1981-1988     County Attorney for Horry County and part time Master-in-Equity for Horry County.

1988-1996     Full-time Master-in-Equity for Horry County.

1996-Present     Circuit Court Judge."

Judge Breeden listed his experience in judicial office as follows:

"Part-time Master-in-Equity for Horry County, 1981-1988. Appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Legislature, serving full time from 1988-1996. Countywide jurisdiction with no monetary jurisdictional limitation.

Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat 13, 1996-Present. Elected. Statewide jurisdiction. Civil, Criminal and Equitable."

Judge Breeden listed three of his most significant orders as follows:

"(a)   South Carolina Federal Savings Bank vs. Thornton-Crosby Development Company, Inc., et al.;

(b)   Preferred Savings Bank vs. Abdo Elkholy, et al.;

(c)   Peoples Federal Savings and Loan Assn., et al. vs. Myrtle Beach Retirement Group, Inc., et al."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Breeden's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Breeden is "qualified for the position of circuit court judge. As a result of its investigation and interview with Judge Breeden, the committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Judge Breeden is married to Sylvia Ann Floyd Breeden. He has two children, Jessica Tatum Breeden, age 31, and John Luther Breeden, III, age 24.
Judge Breeden reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   ABA;

(b)   S.C. Bar Association;

(c)   Horry County Bar Association;

(d)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association."
Judge Breeden provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   O.D. Shag Club;

(b)   Our Time (Social Club), one of several host couples for annual party/dance;

(c)   Midlands Blues Society."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Brogdon meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court Judge.
Judge Brogdon was born on May 29, 1952. He is 49 years old and a resident of Marion, South Carolina. Judge Brogdon 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 Brogdon.
Judge Brogdon 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 Brogdon reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Brogdon 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 Brogdon 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 Brogdon to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Brogdon described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   New Judges School, July 1996;

(b)   National Judicial College General Jurisdiction Course July 1997;

(c)   Annual Judicial Conferences. (1996-2000);

(d)   South Carolina Circuit Judges Association Conferences;

(e)   Annual Criminal Law Seminars (1997-2001)."
Judge Brogdon reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "I currently serve as a member of the South Carolina Circuit Judges Advisory Committee. This Committee is responsible for conducting the school for new judges. This year Judge Dennis and I were responsible for that portion of the school dealing with preparing and giving a civil charge, along with related matters."
Judge Brogdon reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

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

Judge Brogdon reported that he was commissioned in May 1974 in the United States Army Reserves and was honorably discharged with the rank of Captain from the United States Army Reserves in January 1988. Additionally, he served in the South Carolina Army National Guard from September 1978 through October 1980.

Judge Brogdon also provided that he was elected Councilman of the City of Marion from 1983-1992. He also served as Mayor Pro-Tem from 1985 through 1992. He was appointed Marion County Attorney, 1989-1996, and was appointed Chairman of the Marion County Transportation committee from 1994-1996.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Brogdon appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Brogdon appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Brogdon was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.

He summarized his experience after law school as follows:

"Following Law School I took a position as an employee with the Firm of William H. Seals, P.A., beginning my work with that firm in 1977. I worked continuously with that firm and became partner in the firm until the death of William H. Seals in 1989. At that time, I acquired the firm and practiced under the firm name of Seals and Brogdon, Attorney at Law, P.A., until 1992, when the name was changed to James E. Brogdon, Jr., Attorney at Law, P.A. Primarily, my practice throughout my career was of a general nature. Throughout my career I practiced in Family Court, Circuit Court, Probate Court, Magistrate's Court, and before the Workers Compensation Commission. Additionally, my practice involved a good bit of real estate work. During my career, my partner, William H. Seals, and I represented both plaintiffs and defendants. Mr. Seals was representing several automobile insurance companies, locally, and at his death I began representing those   carriers. Also, in November 1989, I became the County Attorney and held that position until I became Circuit Court Judge in April 1996."

Judge Brogdon was elected to Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 12 on February 14, 1996, and was sworn in April 1, 1996.

Judge Brogdon listed his most significant cases as follows:

"(a)   Raytheon Engineers and Constructors vs. Roche Carolina, Inc., Civil Action #96-CP-21-333: This was a case arising out of the construction of the Roche Carolina Pharmaceutical facility in Florence, South Carolina. The case was designated as a complex case and assigned to me in late 1996. This matter was tried before me without a jury in September 1999. The trial took approximately five weeks.

(b)   Gaynelle T. Workman, d/b/a Casket Sales and Garments vs. South Carolina Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Funeral Services, Civil Action # 99-CP-23-2548: This matter was before me on appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge. The matter arose out of the issuance of an order by the Administrative Law Judge granting the department's request for an injunction against the appellant for operating her business without a facility license. A copy of my order is attached. It is my understanding that no appeal of this decision was taken by the respondent.

(c)   Joseph R. Ford vs. Georgetown County Water & Sewer District, et al.: This was an action brought by a group of pro se plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of Section 2 of Act #733 1967 Acts 1539. The plaintiffs further argued that the impact fees and connection fees charged by the district were taxes, which were levied

(d)   Leland Humbert vs. State of South Carolina: This was an application for post conviction relief filed by Mr. Humbert. Mr. Humbert alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney allowed the case to proceed to trial while petitioner was wearing a jail uniform, shackles and identification bracelet bearing his mug shot. This was an interesting and yet puzzling case because nowhere during the course of the trial was there ever any mention of the petitioner's attire. After much consideration, I denied the petitioner's application. While I do not have a copy of my order, the matter has recently been affirmed on appeal by the South Carolina Supreme Court.

(e)   Don Weaver and Richland County Council vs. Recreation District, Recreation Commission of Richland County, et al.: This action was brought by the plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of Act #317, 1969 Acts 382 which created the Richland County Recreation Commission and authorized the commission to levy a tax not exceeding five mills. Although my first impression in this case was to determine that the act was unconstitutional, I later decided that there was a basis upon which it might be held constitutional and with that and the requirement that there is a presumption of constitutionality given to legislative acts, I determined that the act was constitutional. Unfortunately I was in error and my decision was reversed by the Supreme Court Opinion #24696 filed October 13, 1997."

Judge Brogdon reported that he previously applied for the resident judgeship of the Twelfth Circuit in December 1994. He withdrew as a candidate for this position in March 1995.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Brogdon's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Brogdon to be "qualified for the position of circuit court judge. As a result of its investigation and interview with Judge Brogdon, the committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Judge Brogdon is married to Pamela Carol Peele Brogdon. His three children are: Meredith M. Brogdon, age 23; Ashleigh E. Brogdon, age 21; and James E. Brogdon, III, age 16.

"(a)   Marion County Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   American Bar Association;

(d)   South Carolina Association of Circuit Court Judges;

(e)   South Carolina Circuit Court Judges Advisory Committee."
Judge Brogdon provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Marion Presbyterian Church - Elder; Clerk of Session;

(b)   Marion Presbyterian Church Endowment Fund Committee."

Judge Brogdon provided the following additional information: "In 1996 when I applied before I was elected to this position, I indicated the following in response to this same question: Attorneys also have the responsibility to uphold the integrity of our profession. I believe that we must do whatever is necessary to improve the public perception of the legal profession and our legal system. It has always caused me great concern that our profession and system are held in such low esteem by the general public. To overcome this perception, I believe we must hold our profession to a higher standard. To overcome this perception of the legal system itself, I believe we need to seek other ways to resolve disputes. I also believe that by treating litigants, attorneys and members of the general public with respect and dignity, the public's perception of our judicial system will be improved.

I still hold these beliefs and over the course of the last five years have tried to adhere to them, particularly in the area of the public's perception of our legal system. I have and will continue to conduct myself in such a fashion that members of the general public who are serving as jurors will leave each week of court with a better understanding of our system and with that better understanding, hopefully, a more favorable impression of it. As to litigants, it is my hope that I have and will continue to provide them with a fair opportunity to be heard."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

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

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Brown.
Judge Brown 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 Brown reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Brown testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Brown testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Brown described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   attended CLE seminars at USC Law School;

(b)   attended Judicial Conferences;

(c)   Drug Court Planning Initiative."
Judge Brown reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Brown reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Brown was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Brown reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Brown reported his military service as follows:
"South Carolina Army National Guard: 1969-1975; Rank E-5; retired; Honorable discharge 1975."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Brown appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Brown appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Brown was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974. He reported the following legal experience:

"General Practice of Law, 1974-1994

Practiced in Winnsboro, 1974-1994, practice consisted of criminal (Magistrate and General Sessions), domestic, civil, social security, real estate, bank law, and Town Attorney."

Judge Brown reported that he has held the following judicial offices:

"Sixth Circuit Family Court Judge, Seat 2 from February 24, 1994 to June 30, 1996. Elected to fill unexpired term of Judge Thomas B. Barrineau, Jr. Re-elected June 30, 1996 to June 30, 2002.

City Recorder for the Town of Winnsboro - 1976-1980
Appointed by Town Council - Jurisdiction was limited to offenses inside town limits and punishment was $100.00 or 30 days in jail."

The following is Judge Brown's account of his five most significant orders and opinions:

"(a)   Stanton vs. Stanton, 326 S.C. 566, No. 2660 filed 4/21/97 Custody;

(b)   Hill v. Hill, Unpublished Opinion No. 98-UP-358 filed 7/16/98 - equitable division;

(c)   Hess v. Lancaster, Unpublished Opinion No. 378, filed 5/24/2000 - custody case;

(d)   Wagner v. Wagner, Unpublished Opinion No. 2000-UP-442, filed 6/13/00 - divorce, custody and equitable division;

(e)   Smith-Cooper v. Cooper, Opinion No. 3295, filed 2/12/01 - reduction in alimony."

Judge Brown reported that he has not had any employment while serving as a judge other than an elected judicial office.

Judge Brown reported that he has never been an unsuccessful candidate for elective, judicial, or other public office.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Brown's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "We find Judge Brown eminently qualified as a Family Court Judge. He is held in high regard by the legal profession as well as the community as a whole. We have no reservations regarding his continued service."
Judge Brown is married to Harvey Newsom Walker. He has two children: Frances Walker Brown, age 23, and Katherine Anne Brown, age 19.
Judge Brown reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   American Bar Association."
Judge Brown provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   The Palmetto Club of Columbia;

(b)   The University Club - Blythewood;

(c)   Fairfield Country Club - Winnsboro;

(d)   USC Gamecock Club;

(e)   USC Alumni Association."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Cate meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service
Ms. Cate was born on October 16, 1960. She is 41 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Ms. Cate provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Cate.
Ms. Cate demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Cate reported that she has spent $65.00 on postage and photograph paper.
Ms. Cate testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening; or

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator.

Ms. Cate was questioned extensively about several letters of support that have been received by legislators on her behalf. Ms. Cate testified that she has not asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly on her behalf prior to screening.
Ms. Cate testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

"(a)   Third Annual Children's Law Conference (2001);

(b)   S.C. Solicitor's Association 2000 Annual Conference;

(c)   S.C. Solicitor's Association 1999 Annual Conference;

(d)   S.C. Solicitor's Association 1998 Annual Conference;

(e)   S.C. Solicitor's Association 1997 Annual Conference;

(f)   School Violence in South Carolina (1997);

(g)   S.C. Solicitor's Association 1996 Annual Conference."
Ms. Cate reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"Adjunct professor: Limestone College, Business Law;

Adjunct professor: Webster University, Business Law;

Guest lecturer: Trident Technical College Paralegal Studies, Family Law and Procedure;

Guest lecturer: Local juvenile detectives and officers, Juvenile and Family Law;

Guest lecturer: Stratford High School, Juvenile Law;

Guest speaker: Elementary and secondary schools, Juvenile Law and Career Instructor: Goose Creek High School Youth Court participants

(Training of student prosecutors, defense attorneys, and court personnel in the areas of criminal law, courtroom decorum and etiquette, preparation of case from initial review of incident reports to presenting a trial).

Co-Instructor: Goose Creek High School Mock Trial Competition

(Unfortunately due to conflicts in other extracurricular activities, we lacked sufficient number of student/participants to formally enter the competition)."
Ms. Cate reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Cate was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Ms. Cate reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. Cate appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Ms. Cate appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Cate was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.

Ms. Cate described her legal experience as follows:

"(a)   October 1986 - May 1987

Berkeley County Solicitor's Office, Ninth Judicial Circuit

Charlie Condon - Solicitor

Assistant Solicitor

Primary responsibilities included handling Department of Social Services child abuse and neglect cases which at that time came under the auspices of the Solicitor's Office; juvenile prosecution; handling of URESA actions (Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act) which involved enforcement of other state's child support orders against SC citizens under the uniform code (again at that time, this responsibility came under the auspices of the Solicitor's Office); also handled General Sessions prosecution of criminal sexual offenders.

(b)   May 1987 - September 1987

Judicial Law Clerk

The Honorable Lawrence E. Richter, Jr., Circuit Court Judge,

Ninth Judicial Circuit

While working in the Berkeley County Solicitor's Office, I was asked by then Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence E. Richter, Jr. if I would serve out the remainder of his law clerk's position. Due to Judge Richter's court administrative responsibilities for both Common Pleas and General Sessions matters, I was very fortunate in my tenure with him to be deeply involved in the administrative and courtroom activities in both criminal and civil matters. As judicial law clerk, I was responsible for maintaining the Judge's appointments and court calendars, ensuring that deadlines were met; shielded the Court from any inappropriate ex parte communication; reviewing trial briefs which were discussed between us prior to trial; legal research on issues that came before the Court and updating the Judge on new legislation and caselaw authorities; assisted the Judge in obtaining materials for speeches and continuing legal education seminars and conferences, participated in pre-trial and discovery conferences between the Judge and attorneys; drafted Orders; reviewed and edited proposed Orders and to do all that was needed by the Court prior to, during and post trials.

(c)   September 1987 - May 1988

Watson, Tiencken & West (Partners: Robert E. Watson, John           H. Tiencken, Jr., and John S. West)

Moncks Corner, S.C.

Associate

In this general litigation firm, I was the sole associate with primary responsibilities focused on assisting the partners on on-going civil and criminal litigation and county administrative matters that included legal research; answering discovery motions; taking depositions; client interviews; drafting motions, trial briefs and proposed Orders; court appearances in motions and trials in the municipal, magistrate, probate,

(d)   May 1988 - January 1992

Richter Firm, P.A. (Lawrence E. Richter, Jr.)

Richter & Cate, P.A., Charleston, S.C.

Associate and later partner/shareholder

This period included a continuation of the legal responsibilities normally given to an associate; however, I expanded my trial experience to appearing in other county courts and U.S. District Courts. Our firm also handled more business-oriented litigation representing banking institutions, companies, corporations and sole proprietors. My Family Court practice continued to flourish to include litigation in all aspects of family law. I became a partner/shareholder and assumed office managerial/administrative responsibilities in addition to my legal responsibilities to include, but not limited to, handling everyday financial and personnel matters. Our firm expanded adding associates and other support personnel.

(e)   January 1992 - April 1996

Jocelyn B. Cate, Attorney at Law, Offices in West Ashley and Charleston, S.C.

Sole practitioner

My practice was divided approximately as follows: 98% family court, 1% criminal law and 1% personal injury. I continued to gain expertise in all areas of family law to include, but not limited to separation, divorce, child custody, child support, visitation, paternity, adoptions, guardian ad litem appointments, DSS child abuse and neglect, DJJ juvenile defense, prenuptial agreements, etc.

(f)   April 1996 - Present

Berkeley County Solicitor's Office, Ninth Judicial Circuit

David P. Schwacke - Former Solicitor

Ralph E. Hoisington - Present Solicitor

I returned to the Solicitor's Office with renewed interest in the prosecution end of Family Law - juvenile justice. I am solely responsible for the overall operation of the juvenile criminal prosecution for Berkeley County - from initial assessments of DJJ referrals to post-trial matters. I schedule my own cases during court times given to me by the Clerk of Court. I supervise staff consisting of a Victim-Witness Advocate and two legal secretaries. I work closely

Ms. Cate reported the following regarding her experience in Family Court practice areas:
"JUVENILE JUSTICE:

With the exception of my tenure as a judicial law clerk, my fifteen (15) years of legal experience has primarily been in the Family Court system. For the past five (5) years, to the present I have been in charge of juvenile prosecution for Berkeley County. Prosecutorial duties include reviewing Department of Juvenile Justice referrals; making decisions to prosecute, divert, defer or dismiss; drafting of juvenile petitions, motions, orders and other pleadings; follow-up criminal investigation for trial; trying cases; and making recommendations to the Court as to disposition. I am solely responsible for managing the juvenile docket in Family Court. I work closely with the Clerk of Court, the judiciary and judicial personnel to ensure that cases are handled in an efficient and timely manner. In order to provide the Court with as much information as possible about a minor appearing before the Court, I maintain regular contact with other agencies involved with the minor and/or family and conduct frequent staffings with representatives from the Department of Juvenile Justice, Department of Social Services, Managed Treatment Services, Continuum of Care, Protection and Advocacy, Guardian ad Litem Programs, Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, Department of Mental Health, Alternative Placement facilities and Berkeley County School District. Prosecution also involves contempt actions filed against parents or guardians who willfully and intentionally violate Court Orders. I have handled matters involving the return of runaways located in our jurisdiction to their home state under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles. While in private practice, I was routinely appointed to represent both status and non-status juvenile offenders. However, In Re: Tapp, 96-JU-10-186, I represented a juvenile's mother who had filed an incorrigible complaint against her son. He had also been involved in non-status, criminal offenses. The mother had exhausted all resources available to her to help her son and was extremely frustrated with what she perceived were agencies that were not addressing the needs of her child.
ABUSE AND NEGLECT

When I was first employed by the Solicitor's Office, the handling of Department of Social Services' child abuse and neglect cases came under the responsibility of the Solicitor. I represented the interests of

I have had extensive experience in this area of Family Law from obtaining divorces on one year continuous separation grounds to highly contested cases involving proof of adultery. As in all domestic cases, my involvement began with the drafting of pleadings and affidavits to be submitted at temporary hearings; I conducted extensive discovery, if necessary; I engaged in good faith negotiations; I drafted proposed agreements; I went to trial and drafted proposed Orders. In Turner v. Turner, 94-DR-18-1434, I represented the defendant/wife whose husband filed for separation. We counterclaimed for, among other things, divorce on the ground of adultery and was successful. In this pro bono appointment, Martin v. Martin, 94-DR-10-900, I represented the wife who was totally disabled due to severe emotional conditions.

In litigating child custody actions, I utilized extensively the expertise of mental health professionals, social workers, guardians ad litem, school officials and medical doctors in proving that my clients were in fact the primary caretakers of the children or to disprove the opposition's claim to that role. In preparation for trial, I obtained information by way of voluntary interviews, and if necessary, through subpoenaed depositions. Naturally associated with custody are the issues of visitation and child support that at times were also hotly contested and litigated. I have also had the opportunity to be involved in matters involving the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. I have been appointed by the Court and have also been specifically asked by parties to serve in the capacity of guardian ad litem in private child custody actions. In Johnson v. Johnson, 94-DR-4449, I represented a five-year-old child in a custody action between her divorcing parents. The father had been accused and cleared of allegations of sexual abuse. I conducted an extensive investigation that included interviewing the various physicians and mental health professionals, made many announced and unannounced home visits to both parents' homes and spent many hours visiting with the child.
ADOPTIONS:

I have represented unwed mothers who wished to put their unborn child up for adoption. In those cases, my involvement began with the

"State:   100%"
Ms. Cate reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:

(b)   criminal:   98%

(c)   domestic:   2% (Quasi-criminal prosecution of contempt for violation of Family Court Protection Orders)"
Ms. Cate reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"Non-jury:   100% (Family Court )"
Ms. Cate provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Cate's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   In Colangelo v. Venesky, 92-DR-10-4599, I represented a father who wanted custody of his then three-year-old son from his mother. The father and mother were never married. This father was also an active enlisted man in the U.S. Air Force temporarily stationed in Charleston. The mother had lived in this area all of her life and had extended family members also living in the area who were willing and able to assist her with the raising of her son. This was a highly contested case. The case was initially brought in Colleton County, but by agreement, venue was transferred to Charleston County. Mother was given temporary custody at the temporary hearing. Extensive discovery was conducted by both sides. Nine months into the litigation, Mother filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Father was not the biological father of the child. I filed a Return to the Motion citing errors by counsel under Rule (6)(d) and 7 and by also pointing out that the Mother had admitted to paternity in her Answer. I also sought attorney's fees and costs for the unmeritorious motion. On the date of the hearing, Mother withdrew the

(b)   In Frazier v. Stoddard, 93-DR-10-8137, I represented the father, a resident of the State of Wisconsin, in a special appearance to defend a change of custody action brought in this State by his ex-wife who had relocated here with their daughter. I filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal juridiction under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, 18 U.S.C. 1738(A)(d); Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act; prevailing case law Knoth v. Knoth, 377 S.E.2d 340 (1989) and was able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the Decree State (Wisconsin) had continuing jurisdiction of the case and that any action to change the custody arrangement must be made there absent an agreement by the parties. We were completely successful and were awarded attorney's fees and costs reimbursement for my client's traveling expenses. This case was subsequently appealed by the ex-wife.

(c)   In Eidem v. Dorchester County Department of Social Services, 91-DR-18-027 and 92-DR-18-869, I represented foster parents who sought to adopt their foster child who had been in their care due to the neglect of the biological mother. I intervened in the pending DSS case and initiated an action for the termination of parental rights of the natural parents and adoption, and in the alternative, for legal custody. The actions were consolidated by my motion. This was a very time-consuming case in that the biological mother did everything in her power to make it difficult for me to provide her with notice of hearings and to serve her with motions and Rules to Show Cause. Extreme measures were done to withstand any subsequent attacks on notice and due process deficiencies. Hearings were continued and rescheduled due to the mother not having representation or her lack of appearance altogether. This case was eventually tried without the presence of the mother. I presented numerous witnesses and was successful in

(d)   I represented paternal grandparents who were out-of-state residents seeking sole and exclusive care, custody and control of their grandson who was a product of an unmarried relationship between their son and the child's biological mother. My clients' son died in an automobile accident in South Carolina. This action was brought in the Charleston Family Court. I apologize that I do not have docket number nor the case name. This file is not in my possession to review but is the property of the firm I was working for at that time. The facts as stated are based solely on my good faith recollection of the events. This also was a highly contested case. The trial of the case lasted several days spanning several weeks due to the conflicts in the court schedule during the trial. After taking the case under advisement, the Court ruled in my clients favor and were awarded legal and physical custody of their grandson.

(e)   The business of holding minors accountable for their actions and setting forth appropriate consequences are the main goals of juvenile justice. In cases where it is clear that adults (parents, stepparents, grandparents, guardians) are also in violation of the law for failing to abide by Court Orders, it has been my practice to hold these adults accountable by also filing Rules to Show Cause against them and requesting that appropriate contempt sanctions be imposed. Rules to Show Cause have included failure to closely supervise the minor while under house arrest awaiting adjudication; failure to schedule appointments with service providers for their child and/or themselves; failure to provide transportation for their child to get to these appointments; failure to cooperate with DJJ or other service providers; failure to go to court-ordered family, drug and/or alcohol counseling or submit to random drug testings. Sentences have included actual jail time but are usually suspended sentences with payment of a fine or compliance with the Order."

The following is Ms. Cate's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"Frazier v. Stoddard, 93-DR-10-8137, Appeal to the S.C. Supreme Court, Order of Dismissal, August 26, 1996. I represented the Respondent who was successful in dismissing a custody action brought by ex-wife under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. Facts stated above."

Ms. Cate reported that she has served as a "[s]pecial referee in condemnation actions brought by the Berkeley County Water and Sanitation Authority in 1991. Rendered monetary compensation decisions regarding property subject to eminent domain."

Ms. Cate reported that she was an unsuccessful candidate for Dorchester County Master-in-Equity in 1992.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Cate's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Ms. Cate is "a well qualified and highly respected candidate. The committee highly recommends Jocelyn B. Cate's election to the position of Family Court Judge."
Ms. Cate is married to Ned Clinton Ginsburg. She has one child: Alexandra Jordan Ginsburg, age 11.
Ms. Cate reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   American Bar Association;

(b)   S.C. Bar Association;

(c)   Charleston County Bar Association;

Former Family Law Section, Chairman (1992-1993)

Former Family Law Section Executive Committee Member (1991-1992)

(d)   Berkeley County Bar Association;

(e)   Missing and Exploited Children Comprehensive Action Plan (M/CAP)."
Ms. Cate provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Phi Beta Kappa;

(b)   Gammi Beta Phi;

(c)   Past Trident United Way Planning Committee member;

(d)   Past Legend Oaks Plantation Subdivision Social Committee member;

(e)   Legend Oaks Plantation Reading Club member;

(f)   Past room mother - Beech Hill Elementary School;

(g)   Past volunteer - Beech Hill Elementary School;

(h)   St. John the Beloved Church;

(i)   J. Gordon Belser Award;

(j)   Pro Bono recognition and appreciation awards;

(k)   Who's Who in American Colleges;

(l)   Past volunteer assistant basketball coach, Summerville YMCA and Hanahan Recreational Center."

Ms. Cate additionally provided,"[y]ou will undoubtedly see in and around any family court in this country a commonality: people, young and old, who are full of stress, frustration and fear. These are the emotional conditions confronting Family Court judges each and every day. It takes a special person to hear these types of cases day in and day out; therefore, those who are charged by law with the awesome authority to select this person should do so only with the full and conscientious regard to those qualities and characteristics that define this special person.

I believe that the totality of my vast experience clearly demonstrates my command of fundamental legal principles and in procedural and evidentiary rules in both the civil and criminal contexts of this specialized area of law. I believe that I have the respect of the Bench and the Bar not only for my legal abilities but for my people skills. The rule I follow is simple: Treat others the way you would like others to treat you.

Lastly, I believe that lawyers will be able to tell their clients that if they ever find themselves appearing before me that they can expect to be fully and fairly heard by a highly competent and reasonable person whose final judgment will be based on the laws of the State of South Carolina as applied to the facts presented."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Culp meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Culp was born on October 23, 1961. He is 40 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Culp provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Culp.
Mr. Culp demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,

(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. Culp 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. Culp to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Culp described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: "I have taken various courses in regard to child custody and domestic relations. I have also taken several probate seminars as well as seminars on elder law. In addition, I have completed the training for mediation."
Mr. Culp reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "I taught a course on torts to the paralegals at Greenville Technical College in 1993. On both September 27, 1995, and January 28, 2000, I was a moderator and speaker at a probate practice seminar. On October 24, 2000, I was a speaker at a child custody seminar."
Mr. Culp reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Culp 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. Culp reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

Mr. Culp described his legal experience as follows:

"1986-1987     Law Clerk for the Honorable Frank P. McGowan, Jr.;

1987-1990     Associate, Rainey, Britton, Gibbes and Clarkson;

1990-1991     Associate, Haskins & Patton;

1991-present   Sole Practice."

Mr. Culp provided the following information regarding his legal experience: "In my first four years of practice, when I was with two different law firms, the general area of practice was in the field of insurance defense. When I opened my own law firm in 1991, I first stated out in general practice. The last ten years of practice have mainly been in the areas of probate law, elder law, domestic law and civil litigation. In the last five years, the emphasis of my practice has grown even more to domestic law and probate law. The last four years I have also done a great deal of work in representing parties in Department of Social Services abuse and neglect cases. During the last ten years of my practice, I have represented a number of parties in divorce and equitable division of property cases. I have also handled a number of child custody matters, including adoptions. I have served as Guardian ad Litem for minor children in various cases as well. Since completing mediation training, I have mediated several domestic cases involving child custody. Although I have not had any cases in the juvenile justice area, I have observed how the Family Court Judges deal with children in custody and abuse cases. I am a quick learner and would be able to gain quick experience in order to deal with juvenile justice cases."

Mr. Culp further provided the following regarding his experience in Family Court: "I have been involved in approximately 17 different matters in the last ten years in which I have drafted agreements and court orders concerning equitable distribution and/or custody. In all these matters, the parties had reached an agreement regarding these issues. My experience also involved taking these matters to court and getting the agreements approved. I have also had several matters which

I have handled approximately four cases which involved a change of custody which was eventually approved by a court order. One of the cases, the Barth matter, in which I represented the father, the mother initially opposed the change but we were able to get her to agree to the change of custody to my client. I am currently involved in a case involving change of visitation due to one of the parties moving out of the state.

I have worked on six adoptions as the attorney for the parties seeking to adopt. These adoptions generally involved step-parent adoptions or other family member adoptions. All were successful. I have also served as a Guardian ad Litem in four different matters in which I was the attorney for the children in the adoption case.

I have worked on three matters, Myers, Gallant, and Gaul, in which I have moved to dismiss a change of custody action due to the fact that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. In two of those cases, I was successfully able to get the cases dismissed. I have regularly represented clients from other states as well as one client outside of the United States.

I have also been involved in approximately five cases which involved contempt actions either on behalf of my client or against my client. In one matter, the Fewell matter, I was able to get the other party held in contempt for failure to provide medical records to my client. Also, the other party was ordered to pay all of our attorney's fees. In the Rice matter, I was successful in getting a failure to pay alimony complaint against my client dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I have also handled several custody matters which have been litigated. In the Evans matter, we had a trial before Judge William Craine involving change of custody and a request for restricted visitation. This matter was litigated for a full day. There was also the Oggenfus matter which was also litigated for one and one-half days before Judge Craine. I also litigated the Harris matter before Judge Jenkins for approximately one day in Pickens County. In one of the more interesting matters, the McEver case, we litigated a case involving questions of child custody and visitation before Judge Rucker in Laurens County for a full day. In the end, although my client was not given custody, Judge Rucker did not award the other side any attorney's fees or costs, stating that this was a case that had to be litigated.

In another of the more interesting cases I have had, the Caldwell case, I represented the paternal grandparents who were trying to gain custody of their grandson from the mother. This matter was contested and eventually settled by giving my clients visitation with their grandson.

I have also been involved in three cases which went to trial involving the termination of parental rights of my client. These cases were Harrison, Evans, and Bayne. The Harrison case was tried for a full day before Judge Rucker in Greenville County. I have also been involved in domestic related cases in which either my client or the other party was incarcerated.

I have also been in one case, Waldo, which involved a request for change of child support. I have taken approximately six consents for the relinquishment of parental rights. I have also bee involved as a Guardian ad Litem in custody matters in approximately ten cases in Family Court.

I have been doing work in abuse and neglect cases with the Department of Social Services since 1997. Initially, I served as the attorney for the Guardian ad Litem from the Guardian ad Litem Office. I was responsible for appearing at fifteen minute first call hearings for a full day. I also served as a Guardian ad Litem in several contested matters which lasted approximately one day each. There were about three of these contested matters while I did this work.

I have since served as an attorney for parties in approximately thirty different matters in the abuse and neglect area. Several of the cases have involved trials which lasted about one-half day. In addition, I have served as a Guardian ad Litem in abuse and neglect cases for children in approximately eighteen cases.

The above is a summary of the types of matters that I have handled in Family Court. In total, in the last ten years, I have served as attorney in approximately 155 different matters which include family law (including consultations). This does not include matters in which I was Guardian ad Litem. I have not had any experience in the area of juvenile justice."
Mr. Culp reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   federal: none

(b)   state: one time per week"
Mr. Culp reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   civil:     35%

(b)   criminal:   5%

(c)   domestic:   60%"
Mr. Culp reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     50%

(b)   Non-jury:   50%"
Mr. Culp provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Culp's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Marian Hackney v. the Estate of William N. Hackney, Jr. I successfully defended the Estate against a claim for elective share brought by the Power of Attorney for the surviving widow. The case was significant due to the fact that the elective share, if successful, would have been worth some $500,000.00. The case was also significant due to the fact that I was able to prove that the elective share had been waived even though the original waiver could not be found.

(b)   Atmore Industries v. Thomas Pack and Pack Yarn Industries. I was able to obtain a $135,000.00 judgment against both Pack Yarn Industries and Thomas Pack, individually on behalf of my client. This case was significant due to the fact that it was heavily defended by the defendants and due to the fact that I was able to pierce the corporate veil and obtain personal liability against Mr. Thomas Pack.

(c)   Goldsmith v. Myers. In this case, I successfully represented Mr. Myers in a child custody matter. This significance of this matter was that I was able to convince the Court in South Carolina to dismiss this action due to the fact that it had no jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.

(d)   Ballew v. Cheever. In this case, I represented a group of citizens in Piedmont, South Carolina who were against the granting of an ABC license to a store. I was able to successfully represent them and convince the Administrative Law Judge to deny the ABC license.

(e)   First Union v. Robert Benner. In this case I successfully defended Mr. Benner in a claim by First Union Bank. Mr. Benner had stopped payment on his check and First Union had paid the check. I was able to convince the Court that First Union Bank was not a holder in due course and therefore Mr. Benner prevailed."

Mr. Culp reported that he has not previously held judicial office.

Mr. Culp reported regarding unsuccessful candidacies as follows: "I ran as the Republican candidate for Greenville County Probate Judge in 1998 but was defeated."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Culp's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Mr. Culp was found to be a most competent lawyer. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Mr. Culp is married to Ellisa Huguley Culp. He has two children: William Ellis Culp, age 9, and Catherine Elizabeth Culp, age 7.
Mr. Culp reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Member of the S.C. Bar from 1986 until present;

(b)   Member of the Greenville County Bar Association from 1986 until present."
Mr. Culp provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Greenville Rotary Club (Health and Happiness Committee Chairman) 1996-present;

(b)   Western S.C. Torch Club (President 1993-1994), 1989-present

(c)   Leadership Greenville 2000-present;

(d)   Greenville Chamber of Commerce 2000-present (Leadership Greenville Class 27);

(e)   Alliance for Community Trust Board of Directors (this is a merger of Greenville Sexual Trauma Center and Prevent Child Abuse) 1999-present;

(f)   Upstate Alzheimer's Association 1998-present;

(g)   Eastside Family YMCA Board of Directors 2000-present. I serve on the Outreach Committee which concentrates on community outreach projects;

(h)   First Presbyterian Church Deacon and Stewardship Committee 2001."

Additionally, Mr. Culp reported:

"I believe that it is important for the Commission to know that I have a good relationship with members of the bar. I believe that I am respected by other attorneys and that they value my opinion. I also believe that I have shown that I can work with any number of people over the years and have a good demeanor in my work habits."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Davis meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Davis was born on June 17, 1965. He is 36 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Davis provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Davis reported that he has not made campaign expenditures.
Mr. Davis 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. Davis testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

The Commission found Mr. Davis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Davis described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: "I have attended the annual South Carolina Public Defender's Conference four out of the past five years. During calendar year 2000, I attended the Solicitor's Conference for CLE credit. I have also attended numerous military training sessions wherein I obtained CLE credit over the past five years."
Mr. Davis reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "I have taught business law courses at Limestone College. This was an undergraduate course in general business law principles. I taught these courses for two semesters at the aforementioned college."
Mr. Davis reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Davis was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Davis reported regarding his Martindale-Hubbell rating: "I'm not sure what my current rating is. Although I am fairly certain that I'm still listed."

Mr. Davis reported the following regarding his military service: "I served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 13, 1983 through July 14, 1987. I received an Honorable Discharge as a Sergeant. I was called back to Operation Desert Storm and served from December 1990 thru April 1991. I was discharged honorably as a Sergeant. I am currently a reservist with the rank of Captain."
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Davis appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

Mr. Davis described his legal experience as follows:

"I worked for the Law Offices of William L. Pyatt starting in 1989. After graduating from law school, I continued to work for William L. Pyatt as an associate in his office. I worked mainly in the areas of personal injury; employment law; family law; criminal defense and bankruptcy law. I worked in these areas from 1991 until 1996 when the firm of Pyatt & Davis, LLC was formed. I continued to work in the areas mentioned above as well as performed duties as an assistant public defender for the county of Newberry from January 1992 through December 1999.

In December 1999, I left the Newberry public defender's office to take a job with the Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office. I entered solo practice and concentrated mainly in the areas of employment and bankruptcy law along the prosecution of cases in Newberry for the Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office."

Mr. Davis provided the following information regarding his civil and criminal experience: "I have practiced criminal law essentially the entire time that I have been engaged in the practice of law. I have had countless jury trials as a public defender and as a private criminal law practitioner. I have second chaired one death penalty case as an assistant public defender State v. Stanley Troy Smith. Mr. Smith was charged with capitol murder for the robbing and killing of his live in girlfriend. The issue in the case was whether robbery had actually occurred. If not, then the aggravating circumstance required for capital case would have been removed. Prior to trial co-counsel and I were able to negotiate a plea to allow our client to avoid the death penalty. Although Mr. Smith got a lengthy prison sentence, he was pleased that the death penalty was removed from the table. Further, in the case of State v. Tonya Alexander, the defendant, a twenty three year old mother of two, was charged with murder for allegedly killing her husband's ex-father in-law, with whom she was romantically involved. Mrs. Alexander was alleging battered women's syndrome as a defense. Although Mrs. Alexander never took the witness stand, I was able to put on a battered woman defense through other witnesses in an attempt to show that a woman could be battered even though she was not necessarily being battered at the time of the perpetrator's death. This of

In civil practice, I practiced mainly personal injury to include worker's compensation. Although approximately ninety percent of my automobile accident cases settled and did not require a civil trial, I feel comfortable in this area as well because I would have to prepare the case as if it were going to trial. However, I would have to brush up on the procedural aspects of civil trials. I have also handled a number of worker's compensation matters that required hearings, which necessitated the preparation of briefs prior to hearings. Finally, I have participated in employment cases that typically take a number of years to actually come to trial if not settled before hand. These cases are usually settled at the lower levels either through the employer's internal grievance process or at the administrative hearing level. I also handle routine chapter 7 and 13 bankruptcy matters. These cases typically straight forward and do not require much litigation."
Mr. Davis reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   Very infrequent as it relates to traditional civil matters. Perhaps three or four cases within the past five years. However, with regard to bankruptcy matters, I appear quite frequently"

(b)   State:     Quite frequently. Eighty percent of my work involves trial work either criminal or to a lesser degree civil trial practice."
Mr. Davis 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:   60%

(c)   Domestic:   10%"
Mr. Davis reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     60% (mainly criminal in nature)

(b)   Non-jury:   40%"
Mr. Davis provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Davis' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Edward Epps v. Clarendon County, this case involved a wrongful termination wherein an employee was terminated for his alleged political affiliation. This case is significant because it

(b)   State v. Tonya Alexander. I defended this murder case which involves the use of the Battered Woman's Syndrome Defense when at the time of the killing the alleged batterer was asleep. This was defense was allowed without the defendant taking the witness stand and testimony of the abuse was introduced through other witnesses. The defendant was ultimately convicted of murder, but the case made for interesting legal maneuvering.

(c)   State v. Michael Dycus. I defended this criminal case which involved the issue of DNA testing in a Criminal Sexual Conduct With a Minor. Dycus was charged with having intercourse with a minor after having placed an unknown substance in her drink which rendered her incapable of determining who was performing a sex act upon her. The DNA analysis, as best I can recall, determined that one out of every 9 white males with Dycus' DNA makeup could have been the perpetrator. There was no other suspect. Dycus was found not guilty.

(d)   State v. James Lee Spoon. I defended this criminal case which involved the issue of a "show up." The defendant was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree and Burglary Second Degree. The perpetrator of this crime wore a ski mask and was not identified at the scene with the exception of voice identification. Investigators eventually called Spoon in for an interview, prior to his representation by counsel, and audio recorded the interview. Investigators subsequently brought the victim in and had her listen to the recorded voice of the defendant. She immediately identified his voice as being the person that assaulted her. During trial, I moved to suppress this tape-recording and her in court identification of Mr. Spoon. These motions were granted. Spoon was acquitted on all charges.

(e)   State v. Tony Murphy. I prosecuted this case wherein the defendant was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor and Lewd Act Upon a Minor. There was not DNA in this case nor was there an independent eye witness who actually saw the assault. The victim was Murphy's step-daughter. The legal issue was whether there needs to be corroborating evidence in a rape case. The answer is

Mr. Davis reported that he has never handled a civil appeal except magistrates court civil appeals in which briefs were not filed.

The following is Mr. Davis' account of the criminal appeals he has handled: "I have only filed the notice of intent to appeal in criminal cases. Typically, Appellate Defense would take over these appeals once filed by my office. I have never argued an appeal with the exception of criminal appeal from magistrate's court to circuit court. I handle all appeals on the magistrate's level in Newberry County, but typically briefs are not required."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Davis' temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Mr. Leroy Ellis Davis to be a qualified and highly regarded candidate. The committee positively approves of his candidacy for the circuit court bench."
Mr. Davis is married to Tracie Lee Davis. He has two children: Ross Ellis Davis, age 10, and Tyler Lee Davis, age 15 months.
Mr. Davis reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Newberry Bar Association (Current President, elected February 12, 2001);

(b)   American Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Bar."
Mr. Davis provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Veterans of Foreign War Organization;

(b)   Respite House, (Non profit Adult Day Care) Former Board Member;

(c)   Board Member Newberry Communities in Schools (Not for Profit Teen After School Program)."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mrs. Godfrey meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mrs. Godfrey was born on December 10, 1952. She is 49 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mrs. Godfrey 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 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mrs. Godfrey.
Mrs. Godfrey 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. Godfrey reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mrs. Godfrey 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. Godfrey 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. Godfrey to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mrs. Godfrey described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Hot Topics in Domestic Law;

(b)   Year in Review;

(c)   S.C. Bar Deep Caribbean Cruise (1998);

(d)   Public Defender Association Conferences;

(e)   Family Court Mediator refresher course."

"(a)   I taught Property/Real Estate Law in the paralegal program at Greenville Technical College 1992 - 1994.

(b)   I was a guest lecturer for a USC School of Law Real Estate Transactions class."
Mrs. Godfrey reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mrs. Godfrey 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. Godfrey reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Mrs. Godfrey reported that she has not served in the military, and she has not held public office.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mrs. Godfrey appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mrs. Godfrey appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mrs. Godfrey was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in November 1988.

Mrs. Godfrey reported the following as her work history since law school:

"1988 - 1991   Assistant County Attorney, Richland County Attorney's Office

Provided legal representation for various departments of county government and Richland County Council; conducted legal research and rendered legal opinions, drafted ordinances, handled both trial court and appellate level cases (issues included, but not limited to, employment law, zoning, business license, and voting machines)

1991 - 1992   Assistant Solicitor, 5th Judicial Circuit

Prosecuted criminal cases by trying cases in both General Sessions Court and Magistrate's Court; prosecuted juvenile cases in Family Court; presented cases to the Grand Jury; handled preliminary hearings and bond hearings for the solicitor's office; prepared indictments, performed Early Legal Assistance for law enforcement

1992 - 2001   Private Practice with Godfrey Law Firm

Litigation oriented law firm with my husband, E.P. "Bill" Godfrey as partner; tried cases in all state courts (magistrate's, municipal, common pleas, family, and general sessions)

1992-1995: I closed real estate transactions in addition to the litigation practice

1996-2001: I handle foreclosure hearings before Masters-in-Equity in the upstate on a piecework basis for a law firm from York, South Carolina."

Mrs. Godfrey reported the following regarding her experience within each of the following Family Court practice areas:
"DIVORCE AND EQUITABLE DIVISION OF PROPERTY: I have represented many individuals in their divorce litigation. Some cases have been short, and relatively uncomplicated. Some cases have involved serving the opposing party by publication and some involved a need for an interpreter or a guardian ad litem for an incarcerated defendant.

I have represented on cases involving significant debts and assets of the marriage, the transmutation of non-marital property into marital property, and difficult identification, valuation, and equitable division of marital assets. Resolution of these issues has been reached both through negotiation and through trial.

I am a licensed Family Court Mediator and have been certified as such since 1995. As a mediator, I have assisted parties in resolving their disputes concerning property division as well as other issues.
CHILD CUSTODY: I have represented many individuals in child custody cases. I have represented both fathers and mothers. I have represented grandparents and legal guardians. I have worked with psychologists and other experts in trial preparation and at trial.

I have also served as Guardian ad Litem in many child custody cases. I have frequently been appointed by the Court to do an expedited preliminary guardian's report in order to stabilize a child's situation.
ADOPTION: I have represented individuals in stepparent adoptions. I have also served as the Guardian ad Litem in stepparent adoptions.
ABUSE AND NEGLECT: I have represented the defendant in abuse and neglect cases. I have also served as the Guardian ad Litem for the

In private practice, I have represented juvenile defendants in family court."
Mrs. Godfrey reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   two cases

(b)   State:     1993-1996: several times per week

1996-1998: several times per month

1999-2001: several times per week."
Mrs. Godfrey reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     5%

(b)   Criminal:   40%

(c)   Domestic:   55%"
Mrs. Godfrey reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     15%

(b)   Non-jury:   85%"
Mrs. Godfrey provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mrs. Godfrey's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Hayden v. FNMA (1997): My clients prevailed with a jury verdict against FNMA for violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

(b)   The State v. Anthony Edwards (1996): My client was found by a jury to be not guilty of the murder charge against him.

(c)   Felts v. Richland County, 383 SE2d 261 (1989): I assisted with the appeal and argued before the Court of Appeals. Richland County prevailed.

(d)   Johnson v. Richland County: a $1,000,000 breach of contract action

(e)   Centaur v. Richland County: Richland County sexually oriented business zoning ordinance litigation."

Mrs. Godfrey stated that she has not personally handled any domestic appeals.

Mrs. Godfrey reported the following employment other than as a judge:

"1974 - 1978:   Kindergarten teacher, Clio Elementary School, Marlboro County Board of Education;

1975 - 1978:   Arts and Crafts Director; Camp Horizon, Bennettsville, South Carolina, a day camp for mentally and emotionally handicapped children;

1978 - 1979:   Director of Marlboro County Improvement Committee (An ESAA grant funded, non-profit organization). I was responsible for writing the grant, hiring and training 16 tutors to work in 11 elementary schools countywide. I identified the 220 students to be tutored (Grades 1-6) by contacting teachers for referrals. I personally conducted parenting workshops each month. I set up and supervised 5 summer enrichment craft programs for elementary school age children during the summer months countywide.

1979 - 1981:   Fifth grade teacher, Pine Ridge Middle School, Lexington II School District."

Mrs. Godfrey reported the following regarding acting as an officer or director or being involved in the management of any business enterprise: "I am a partner in Godfrey Law Firm. The other partner is my husband, E.P. "Bill" Godfrey."

Mrs. Godfrey reported that she was a "candidate for Administrative Law Judge Division, Seat 2, Spring 1999."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mrs. Godfrey's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Ms. Godfrey meets the qualifications as set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Mrs. Godfrey is married to Everett Posey Godfrey, Jr. (Bill). She has four children: Angie Watson, age 27; Chrissie McNamara, age 25; Mac Hobbs, age 18; and Zac Godfrey, age 7.
Mrs. Godfrey reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association, Children's Law section member;

(b)   Greenville Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association;

(d)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;

(e)   Upstate Mediation Network; board member."

"(a)   Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR): State Literacy Chairman, Chapter Regent, Chapter Secretary;

(b)   Christ Church, Greenville: Bible school teacher, member of Madrigals (choir);

(c)   Tamassee School, Salem, South Carolina: Advisory Board Member;

(d)   Lake Forest Elementary School PTA."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jenkins meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Jenkins was born on August 8, 1947. He is 54 years old and a resident of Travelers Rest, South Carolina. Judge Jenkins provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jenkins.
Judge Jenkins demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Jenkins reported that he not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Jenkins testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Jenkins testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

The Commission found Judge Jenkins to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Jenkins described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: "I have consistently satisfied CLE requirements in excess of basic requirements:

(a)   Orientation for new Family Court Judges (1996);

(b)   Annual Judicial Conference with emphasis on current legal   development in Family Law (1996-1999);

(c)   Annual Family Court Judges Conference, current updates in areas of interest in Practice and Procedure and Substantive Development in Family Law (1996-1999);

(d)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, Nevada Annual Conference (1998);

(e)   Evidence In Juvenile and Family Court (1998);

(f)   Advanced Family Law (1997);

(g)   National Judicial College General Jurisdiction (2000);

(h)   S.C. Bar Criminal Law Comprehensive Review (1999)."
Judge Jenkins reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "I have taught the Juvenile Law/Pre-Trial Diversion Course through the sponsorship of the Department of Youth Services and the local Solicitor's Office. It was a ten (10) week course designed to teach juveniles between ages 13-16 responsible civil conduct under the law, giving them exposure through site visits and guest presenters on law enforcement functions, (1986-88).

I have served as a presenter for the SBA Committee for Indigent Representation on the topic on Judicial Responses to PRO SE Representation (1998).

I have served as a presenter for the Family Court Judges Conference on topic of Judicial Ethics (1998)."
Judge Jenkins reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Jenkins was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's

Judge Jenkins described his military experience as follows: "8/66 through 5/69 - Air Force, E-5 (Staff Sergeant) AF11820038. In active reserve 6/69 through 8/72; Honorable Discharge: 8/72."

Judge Jenkins listed the following public offices he has held:

"(a)   1979-1996 - Director, Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc. Appointed through selection by quasi-public Board of Directors.

(b)   1984-86 - State Advisory Committee on Workers Compensation Laws Appointed by the Governor of South Carolina.

(c)   1990-1996 - Board of Directors, South Carolina Protection and Advocacy System for the Handicapped, Inc. Appointed by Board of Directors.

(d)   1991-1996 - The Citadel Board of Visitors - by designation for the State Superintendent of Education.

(e)   1993-1996 - Board of Directors, South Carolina Families for Kids Appointment by Board of Directors."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Jenkins appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Jenkins appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Jenkins was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

Judge Jenkins summarized his experience since law school as follows:

"1976-79: Engaged in the active practice of law as a Staff Attorney/Managing Attorney with Legal Services Agency headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina (NLAP, Inc.). Provided direct legal assistance to indigent clients in the areas of Family Law (50%), State/Federal Housing Law (20%), State/Federal Public Benefit Laws (15%), and State/Federal Consumer Law involved in Claim & Delivery and Deficiency Suits (10%). Other areas of service provided included the preparation of wills and deeds; powers of attorney for clients financial affairs. Yearly caseload exceeded 300 cases. In this position, I also coordinated the expansion of offices to Georgetown, Kingstree and Beaufort Counties.

In addition, coordinated the attorneys weekly office schedule for client intake and served as the office liaison with the local courts. The office yearly caseload exceeded 5,000 cases.

1979-95: Engaged in the active practice of law as an Attorney/Administrator titled: Director/General Counsel for Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc. in Greenville South Carolina. Fifty percent of time was devoted to client practice in association with 13 staff attorneys in the areas of: Family Law Practice (50%), Federal Consumer Law (10%) and other legal services associated with the practice of Poverty Law. I was responsible for the legal services provided through offices located in Greenville, Anderson, and Greenwood, serving those areas and the adjoining counties of Edgefield, McCormick, Abbeville, Oconee and Pickens. The yearly total caseload exceeded 4,000 cases.

Served as legal counsel for numerous local community organizations whose missions are to improve the lives of people in poverty. Examples include: Greenville's Child, Inc., Save Our Sons, Neighborhoods In Action, The Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation, and Brockwood Senior Housing Corporation.

Served as an attorney member on the Kellogg Bar & Bench Sub-Committee of Judicial Administrative Policy, recommending Family Court Rule changes affecting disposition of cases where the State is involved in establishing permanent placement for Foster Care children               (1993-on-going).

I was responsible for the hiring and training of all staff attorneys. I was responsible for public relations with the court system and the community. I served as liaison to the local state and national bar associations.

I was responsible for managing a yearly operating budget of over one million dollars and served as the general counsel for the corporation's financial affairs with state/federal government and other regulating bodies."
Judge Jenkins listed his judicial positions as:

"Family Court Judge, Seat #5 in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit

1996-Present. (Term expires June 2002). I am now serving as a Family Court Judge for the 13th Judicial Circuit. This is a court of limited jurisdiction by statute covering marital litigation, juvenile cases, child dependency cases and other domestic relations issues."

Judge Jenkins listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:

"(a)   Rourk vs. Rourk, 95-DR-95-08-1178, Charleston; T.P.R. (Private Action) (Termination of Parental Rights) The decision disallows termination based on application of S.C. law.

(b)   Wham vs. Simpson, et al., 96-DR-23-5756, Greenville; T.P.R. (Private Action) (Termination of Parental Rights) The decision disallows termination based on application of S.C. law.

(c)   Simons vs. Simons, 98-DR-23-550, 98-DR-23-1819, Greenville; (Private marital litigation involving issues of divorce, custody, child support, equitable division of property and debts, and attorney fees.) The decision voids a purported agreement due to unequal bargaining position and legal unrepresentation of the wife. It allows issues to be presented after the wife obtained competent representation.

(d)   SCDSS vs. Evans, et al., 95-DR-23-5300, 97-DR-23-1073, Greenville; T.P.R. (Public Action) (Termination of Parental Rights) The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application.

(e)   SCDSS vs. Sturkey, et al., 99-DR-23-258, Greenville; T.P.R. (Public Action)(Termination of Parental Rights) The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application.

S.C. Court of Appeals 4/22/99 - Opinion #99 - affirms."

Judge Jenkins has stated that he has not been employed while serving as a judge other than elected judicial office.

Judge Jenkins listed his candidacies for elective, judicial, or other public office as follows: "Candidate for Resident Seat #2 Circuit Court of Greenville, February 2000. Withdrew before formal election.

Candidate for Judicial Seat #3, Family Court, Greenville County (Thirteenth Judicial Circuit) January 1992."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Jenkins was found to be a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectation set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Jenkins is married to Margaret Helen (Rivers) Jenkins. He has two children: Robert Nathaniel Jenkins, Jr., age 28, and Jason Matthew Jenkins, age 20.
Judge Jenkins reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association, member of the Economics of Law Practice Division;

(b)   South Carolina Black Lawyers Association, member; served as its Treasurer 1976-1980;

(c)   Greenville Bar Association, dues paying member;

(d)   American Bar Association, member; served on the Economics of Law Practice Group;

(e)   South Carolina Legal Services Advisory Group B served as Chairman 1983-1996;

(f)   National Project Advisory Group for Legal Services B served as S.C. representative (1983/96)."
Judge Jenkins provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Allen Temple A.M.E. Church Board of Trustees; Assistant Superintendent of Sunday School; Member, Finance Commission;

(b)   Association of Citadel Men-member;

(c)   Northwest (Travelers Rest) YMCA, Board member 1996-present."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Jenkinson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service
Mr. Jenkinson was born on November 19, 1948. He is 53 years old and a resident of Kingstree, South Carolina. Mr. Jenkinson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Jenkinson.
Mr. Jenkinson 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. Jenkinson reported that he has not made any expenditures towards his campaign.
Mr. Jenkinson 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. Jenkinson 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 noted and discussed with Mr. Jenkinson his failure to properly handle the defense of a probation revocation matter in 1988, while serving as public defender. In that matter, Mr. Jenkinson's client spent a year and a half in jail when he should have been released. This led to a finding after a Post Conviction Relief hearing that the client had been denied due process. It also was the subject of a legal malpractice action against Mr. Jenkinson which was settled. The Commission concluded the probation revocation matter represented a single, isolated blemish on an otherwise distinguished record at the Bar.

The Commission found Mr. Jenkinson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Jenkinson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"1995:   02/03/95 - Workers' Compensation Law Update;

11/17/95 - Marital Litigation;

12/01/95 - Workers' Compensation Practice in South Carolina;

1996:     01/12/96 - Worker's Compensation Practice in South Carolina;

12/13/96 - Powerful Witness Preparation;

1997:     05/02/97 - State & Federal Practice;

12/5&6/97 - Auto Torts XX - Atlanta;

1998:     04/24/98 - Stuff You need to Know (SCCAWC);

12/11/98 - Expert Witnesses - The Art and the Law;

1999:     07/30/99 - Effective Rainmaking;

10/01/99 - Masters in Trial;

12/3&4/99 - Auto Torts - Atlanta;

2000:     09/15/2000 - Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Experts;

12/1&1/2000 - Auto Torts XXIII - Atlanta;

12/06/2000 - Nursing Home Negligence."
Mr. Jenkinson reported the following regarding his teaching of law-related courses: "I taught business law and government courses c.

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Jenkinson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation did reveal evidence of a troubled financial status. However, the Commission is satisfied that Mr. Jenkinson is now handling his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Jenkinson 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. Jenkinson reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

Mr. Jenkinson reported "I served in the US Army on active duty from July - October 1974, as an Ordinance Officer. I was honorably discharged from the Reserves as a Captain about 1978."

Mr. Jenkinson reported that he was elected by the State Legislature in 1993 to serve on the South Carolina Coastal Council for a four-year term. He did not seek re-election.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Jenkinson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Jenkinson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Jenkinson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.

He provided the following information regarding his legal experience: "I began practicing in the firm of Jenkinson & Jenkinson November 1974 with my father, W.E. Jenkinson, Jr. and my brother, W.E. Jenkinson, III. Initially I handled cases typical of new associates such as minor wreck cases and family court files. I also handled a number of criminal cases by appointment since Williamsburg County had no public defender. In 1981, M. Duane Shuler and I were appointed co-public defenders for Williamsburg County and at that time, the majority of my caseload consisted of criminal cases. Mr. Shuler and I worked together in this capacity until 1988, when he was

Mr. Jenkinson reported the following regarding his experience in Family Court practice areas:

"Divorce and equitable division of property and child custody: I have handled hundreds of cases in these areas. At least three complex equitable division cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Adoption: I have also handled many private adoptions, and I also work closely with the Region IV Office of the SC Department of Social Services in their special needs program.

Abuse and Neglect: My experience with abuse and neglect cases was limited until this spring when I became a contract attorney for the Georgetown County Department of Social Services. With 25 to 30 open files, I have become experienced in this area very quickly.

Juvenile justice: In my eleven years as public defender, I also handled hundreds of juvenile cases. I have not been retained on a juvenile case, however, in many years."
Mr. Jenkinson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   1 or 2 times

(b)   State:     approximately 50 times a year"
Mr. Jenkinson reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     29%

(b)   Criminal:   1%

(c)   Domestic:   70%"
Mr. Jenkinson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     5%

(b)   Non-jury:   95%"
Mr. Jenkinson provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Jenkinson's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Wise v. Broadway, 315 S.C. 273, 433 S.E.2d 857 (1993). This was an automobile accident case in which the plaintiff I represented sustained significant injuries when he was rear-ended by a truck. The trial judge struck punitive damages even though there was evidence of violation of at least one statute. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision. This case generated much interest from the insurance defense bar because they felt that if the trial judge was affirmed, it would be much more difficult for the issue of punitive damages to go to a jury. Both the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association and the South Carolina Trial Lawyers' Association filed amicus briefs.

(b)   State v. McKnight, 352 S.E.2d 471, 291 S.C. 110 (1987). I was the lead attorney in this drug prosecution of six people. We successfully moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to a defective search warrant. The Supreme Court upheld the trial judge's order, finding that the state search warrant statute had not been complied with by the arresting officers. As a result of the Court's ruling, all charges against the defendants were dismissed.

(c)   State v. Cooper; This 1978 case was one of the first death penalty cases that was called for trial after the death penalty was reinstated in Furman v. Georgia. My co-counsel and I recruited the assistance at trial of Milliard Farmer, a nationally known death penalty expert. We also hired a leading jury consultant when this specialty area was in its infancy. As a result, we were able to disqualify many venire members. After the second day of trial when only 3 jurors had been seated, the State agreed to a plea of life for our client.

(d)   Faires, et al. v. Kirk, unreported opinion of the Court of Appeals. I represented the homeowners in Charleston County who were sued by their building contractors. The case took about a week to try and it involved many complex valuation issues. The trial court ruled in favor of the homeowners and awarded me $42,000.00 in attorney's

(e)   Gaskins vs. Gaskins, (1995) This divorce action involved a substantial marital estate with many issues such as transmutation, valuation of tobacco crop allotments and alimony. My client received a substantial amount of alimony and her equitable division award was increased by a ruling of the Court of Appeals."

The following is Mr. Jenkinson's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Redmond v. Redmond, 92-DR-21-2244

(b)   Gaskins v. Gaskins, 95-DR-21-2920

(c)   Herring v. Herring, 96-DR-21-2070

(d)   Fennell v. Fennell, (unreported) Judgment Roll. 18709, filed 06-05-91

(e)   Lottie Cooper McCrea vs. Leverne Cooper, et al. (1977)"
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Jenkinson's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The committee is of the opinion that Mr. Jenkinson is qualified for the position of family court judge. As a result of its investigation and interview with Mr. Jenkinson, the committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Mr. Jenkinson is married to Margaret Kelley Jenkinson. He two children: Martha Kent Jenkinson, age 25, and Mary Gordon Jenkinson, age 23.
Mr. Jenkinson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Williamsburg County Bar Association; President 1999-2001;

(b)   Georgetown County Bar Association - 2001;

(c)   South Carolina Bar Association - Member of Resolution of Fee Disputes Panel for the Third Judicial Circuit 1998 - present;

(d)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association."
Mr. Jenkinson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Member of Vestry and Communicant of St. Albans Episcopal Church; Delegate to the Diocesan Convention;

(b)   South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Appellate Panel;

(c)   Williamsburg County Voter Registration Board;

(d)   Chairman of the Architectural Review Board for the Town of Kingstree;

(e)   Chairman of the Beautification Commission for the Town of Kingstree;

(f)   Chairman, Quality of Place Commission of the Williamsburg County Chamber of Commerce;

(g)   Member of the Committee for the Restoration of the Williamsburg County Courthouse;

(h)   Williamsburg County Public Defender Corporation Board of Directors."

Mr. Jenkinson further stated: "I feel that my twenty-six years of extensive practice in the Family Court makes me well qualified to serve as a Family Court Judge."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mrs. Konduros meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mrs. Konduros was born on January 30, 1959. She is 42 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mrs. Konduros 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 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mrs. Konduros.
Mrs. Konduros 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. Konduros reported that she has made $86.00 in campaign expenditures for stationery, postage, and a prepaid telephone card on June 23, 2001.
Mrs. Konduros 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. Konduros 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. Konduros to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mrs. Konduros described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: "Heavily weighted toward Family Court seminars, including a presentation to a judicial CLE, and presenting the DSS portion of the law at the New Family Court Judges School in 1999 and 2000."
Mrs. Konduros reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Numerous Omnibus Adult Protection Act presentations at the Criminal Justice Academy;

(b)   DSS-sponsored Continuing Legal Education seminars on Termination of Parental Rights, Adult Abuse issues, and Adoptions;

(c)   Abuse and Neglect of children training to Greenville School District Teachers;

(d)   'Grand Rounds' training to interns of Greenville Hospital system on recognizing abuse;

(e)   'Recognizing Abuse in the Elderly' to S.C. Crime Prevention Officers Organization, 1999-2001;

(f)   'DSS Law Overview' to the New Family Court Judges School, 1999-2000;

(g)   Summer School on Gerontology, Winthrop University, 1998-2000;

(h)   Judicial CLE on DSS issues."
Mrs. Konduros reported that she has published the following: "'Chief of the Catawbas', Sandlapper Magazine, Summer Issue, 1999."
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mrs. Konduros was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's

Mrs. Konduros reported that she has never held public office or served in the military.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mrs. Konduros appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mrs. Konduros appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mrs. Konduros was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.

Mrs. Konduros described her legal experience as follows:

"1984-85   Weinberg, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, S.C.

General practice, civil, criminal defense, appellate practice, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

1985-87   Law Clerk to the Hon. David F. McInnis, Circuit Court, Third Circuit.

Accompanied the judge to 33 counties in South Carolina assisting him in criminal and civil court.

1987-89   Todd & Barber, Columbia, S.C.

General practice including residential and commercial real estate and development, domestic, probate, appellate practice, criminal, civil, outdoor advertising licensure, and collection.

1989-94   S.C. Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, Deputy General Counsel, Columbia, S.C.

Practice included family court juvenile hearings, real estate purchase and disposal, employee grievance hearings, unemployment hearings, worker's compensation, civil, criminal, probate commitments, Medicaid and Social Security benefits practice.

S.C. Department of Social Services, Greenville, S.C.

County attorney for DSS prosecution of abuse and neglect of children and the elderly, Department of Juvenile Justice cases, child support, unemployment, appellate practice, and probate.

1/97-12/97   The Code Law Firm, Greenville, S.C.

Divorce, child support, DSS, Department of Juvenile Justice cases, civil defense in state and federal court, Insurance Reserve Fund defense

1997-2000   S.C. Department of Social Services, Assistant General Counsel

Adoptions, DSS prosecution, appellate practice, state procurement disputes, day-care licensure appeals, employee grievances.

2000-Present   Director, Greenville Department of Social Services

Management of 314 state employees and multi-million dollar budget, administering Medicaid, food stamps, child and adult protective services, foster care licensing, and over 400 foster children. Supervise five family court practitioners handling child abuse and neglect case, adoption and termination of parental rights. Continue to handle small number of DSS cases, unemployment hearings, and Rule 608 appointments."

Mrs. Konduros described her experience within the Family Court practice areas as follows:
"Divorce and equitable division of property: I have handled divorces both of lower monetary value and one with net assets in the millions.
Child custody: I have extensive experience as a DSS attorney, private attorney and as a guardian ad litem.
Adoption: Extensive experience in both freeing children for adoption and adoption.
Abuse and neglect: I have handled hundreds of cases as the plaintiff in 12 counties, and have defended parents on a more limited basis.
Juvenile Justice: I have defended numerous juveniles against criminal charges, and have appeared as DSS counsel for foster children in DJJ hearings innumerable times.

For the past almost seven years, I have appeared weekly, and sometimes daily, in family court hearings and contested trials throughout the Upstate, including child support, protective order hearings, and contempt hearings. I have set and administered daylong dockets, and set multi-day trial dockets."
Mrs. Konduros reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   rare, maybe three times

(b)   State:     predominantly family court, with a fair percentage of circuit court and appellate appearances."
Mrs. Konduros reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     6%

(b)   Criminal:   4%

(c)   Domestic:   90%"
Mrs. Konduros reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     5%

(b)   Non-jury:   95%"
Mrs. Konduros provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mrs. Konduros' account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   SCDSS v Elizabeth Rochelle Maddox, et al.; Family court termination of parental rights case concerning termination of rights to remaining siblings of murdered sibling. Mother and father had been criminally prosecuted for death of the one son, and the case raised the novel issue of whether the termination case was premature, as the criminal convictions were on appeal. Family court terminated, but the case is on appeal. Grounds were failure to support and visit, and death of a sibling.

(b)   SCDSS v Partridge, Harris, et al.; sex abuse case on two young children where the mother, father, mother's boyfriend and maternal grandparents were all suspects. The children were too young to testify. Father won custody, and the grandparent's were barred from ever having any contact with the grandchildren by any method. Case was not appealed, but the grandparents filed numerous motions to have the case reopened. Case was the first in Greenville to litigate grandparents' rights. (NOTE: grandparents were not held responsible for sex abuse.)

(c)   SCDSS v Walker, Thompson, et al.; complicated neglect and custody case where father of all the children, and both mothers of the children were all individuals with mental retardation. Each litigant had a lawyer and a guardian because of the mental retardation, and the case was tried carefully in an attempt to allow the litigants to understand the issues at bar.

(d)   SCDSS v Plunkett, Sullivan, et al.; contested four day termination of parental rights and contested adoption trial between the natural parents, who are also full siblings and their mother, versus the foster/adoptive parent. The parents relinquished their rights, and then changed their minds forcing a two-day trial on the voluntariness of their relinquishments, followed by a two day contested adoption between the grandmother and the adoptive mother. Case stands for the proposition

(e)   Hooper v Rockwell, SCDSS et al., 334 S.C. 281, 513 S.E.2d 358 (1999)-mother appealed termination of her parental rights, which the Court upheld. The case is the current law in South Carolina on what matters in family court are interlocutory and what matters are final and ripe for appeal."

The following is Mrs. Konduros' account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   SCDSS v Beeks, et al., 325 S.C. 243, 481 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. Supreme Court 1997)

(e)   Hooper v Rockwell, et al., 334 S.C. 281, 513 S.E.2d 358 (S.C. Supreme Court 1999)
(Other appeals are unpublished or are appeals from other areas of law than domestic matters.)"
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mrs. Konduros' temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Ms. Konduros was found to be a most competent lawyer. Her qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Mrs. Konduros is married to Samuel James Konduros. She does not have any children.
Mrs. Konduros reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Richland County Bar Young Lawyers, Vice-President, 1988;

(b)   South Carolina Bar;

(c)   Greenville County Bar;

(d)   S.C. Women's Law Association, Regional Liaison, 1999;

(e)   National Association of Elder Law Attorneys."
Mrs. Konduros provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations; many of these memberships are in her capacity as Director of Greenville County Department of Social Services:

"(a)   Board Member, Prevent Child Abuse Carolina;

(b)   Board Member, "Safe Harbor" (battered woman's shelter);

(c)   Board Member, Greenville Ballet;

(d)   Board Member, Greenville First Steps;

(e)   Executive Director, "Pendleton Place" (children's shelter);

(f)   Member, Governor's Juvenile Justice Task Force, 13th Circuit;

(g)   Member, Greenville County Substance Abuse Counsel;

(h)   Member, Greenville Area Directors of Social Health Associations (GADSHA);

(i)   Member, Greenville Pediatric HIV Advisory Board."

Mrs. Konduros additionally reported that she was "Co-recipient of the Claude N. Sapp Award for Outstanding Law Graduate of 1984 (with David Dukes, Esq. of Columbia)."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lee meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service
Judge Lee was born on September 17, 1958. She is 43 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Lee provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Lee.
Judge Lee demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Lee reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Lee testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Lee testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

The Commission found Judge Lee to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Lee described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"1996   School Law in South Carolina (6.0);

The Woman Advocate in South Carolina (7.58);

Ethics Seminar (3.0);

Criminal Practice (6.0);

1997 - carried over credits from 1996

National Judicial College - Advance Evidence (1 week);

Summary of 1997 Revisions of Lawyer Disciplinary Process & the Ethics Act (2.0);

S.C. Woman Advocate: Making Practice Perfect (7.5);
1998 - carried over credits from 1997

Rules, Rules, Rules - S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure (3.0);

South Carolina Woman Advocate (4.25);

Employment and Labor Law (3.0);

Ethics Seminar (3.0);

1999 - carried over credits from 1998

Annual Criminal Law Update (7.0);

Circuit Judges Orientation School (17.25);

S.C. Judicial Conference (7.25);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (6.0);

2000 - carried over credits from 1999

National Judicial College - General Jurisdiction (58.08);

Annual Criminal Law Update (6.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (6.5);

S.C. Judicial Conference (7.75)."
Judge Lee reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"JCLE - Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (August 1985)

Topic: Settling the Family Court Record on Appeal
Basic Federal Court Practice (September 1985)

Topic: Pretrial Orders, Sanctions & Local Rules
Drafting Criminal Laws under the Sentencing Classification Act (November 1993)
Bridge the Gap (May 1996, March 1997, May 1997, March 1998, May 1998)

Topic: Practice Tips for the Administrative Law Judge Division

Topic: 1996 Update for the Administrative Law Judge Division
Rules, Rules, Rules: S.C. Practice & Procedure Update (March 1998)

Topic: Rules of the Administrative Law Judge Division
South Carolina Woman Advocate: Moving into the Millennium (May 1998)"
Judge Lee reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Lee was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Lee reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Lee appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Lee appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Lee was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

Judge Lee provided the following information regarding her legal experience:

"(a)   1982-83: Law Clerk, Honorable Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals;

(b)   1983-84: Law Clerk, Honorable C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., South Carolina Court of Appeals;

(c)   1984-89: Associate, McNair Law Firm, P.A., primarily litigation in contract or consumer related issues. Last two years practice labor and employment related litigation;

(d)   1989-94: Staff Counsel, S.C. Legislative Council, drafting legislation and amendments for members of the General Assembly in the areas of transportation, crime, corrections and prisons, and education;

(e)   1994-1999: Administrative Law Judge presiding over administrative hearing relating to insurance, environmental permitting, alcoholic beverages, wages, taxes, video poker, bingo, appeals from occupational licensing boards, and hearings on regulations promulgated by certain state agencies;

(f)   1999-present: Circuit Court Judge. Court of general jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters. Appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate cases as well as administrative agencies and boards or commissions."

Regarding prior judicial positions, Judge Lee reported: "Elected by the General Assembly in February 1994 to the office of Administrative Law Judge which is a quasi-judicial function within the executive branch of government. Jurisdiction is limited to fact finding within the context of administrative hearings involving taxes, licensing, permitting and rate-making. Act as an appellate body in matters involving occupational licensing and foster care licensing, among others. Conduct public hearings and decide the reasonableness and need for regulations promulgated by certain state agencies.

Elected by the General Assembly in February 1999 to Circuit Court. Court of general jurisdiction covering civil and criminal matters. Appellate jurisdiction over administrative agencies and boards and commissions within the executive branch. Also appellate jurisdiction over municipal and magistrate cases."

Judge Lee reported the following significant orders:

"(a)   Ward v. South Carolina, 98-CP-40-4069, reversed 538 S.E.2d 245 (S.C. 2000)

Ward, a federal retiree, filed suit against the state seeking to have declared unconstitutional statutes enacted providing state retirees a "rebate" on income taxes in response to Davis v. Michigan. The State filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was granted on the basis that Ward failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Department of Revenue and the Administrative Law Judge Division. The Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that exhaustion of remedies was not required when the sole issue for determination involves the constitutionality of a statute. Neither the Department of Revenue nor the ALJD has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of a statute.

(b)   Harmon v. American Amusement Co., et al., 97-CP-40-2799.

Harmon filed suit seeking damages when the video gaming machine he was playing malfunctioned and accrued credits in excess of $5 Million. His claims involved breach of contract, fraud and deceit,

(c)   Sloan v. Greenville County, et al., 99-CP-23-4464.

Mr. Sloan sued Greenville County seeking to declare its action unlawful in connection with the procured construction of the family Court Building Expansion. The County sought dismissal of the lawsuit claiming Mr. Sloan did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The decision found that Sloan had standing to bring the action against the County as a taxpayer when the legislative acts sought to be enjoined are unlawful.

(d)   Jordan, et al. v. Holt, et al., 96-CP-26-3792.

This was a non-jury trial in which partners in a failed restaurant venture sought dissolution of the partnership, an accounting of the assets and claims for damages from the operation of the business. The trial lasted one week and involved voluminous documents, checks, records and photographs.

(e)   Curtis v. State of South Carolina, 99-CP-23-2463.

Curtis sought to enjoin the State from enforcing a statute prohibiting the sale of urine in interstate commerce and to declare the statute unconstitutional. Held the statute was constitutional and not an infringement on his rights to privacy, free speech, contract and commerce."

Judge Lee reported the following unsuccessful candidacies: "Candidate for Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 10. Election in April 1997, withdrew two days before the election. Seat won by James R. Barber, III. Also candidate for Circuit Court, At-Large Seats 1 and 7. Withdrew candidacy when Commission nominated me as a candidate for Seat 11 in February 1999."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Judge Alison Renee Lee to be a qualified and highly regarded judge. The committee positively approves of her re-election."
Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children: Julian Christopher Summey, age 13, and Amanda Leigh Summey, age 10.
Judge Lee reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   American Bar Association (1985-90);

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association;

(d)   Richland County Bar Association;

(e)   Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education (July 1987-June 1988);

(f)   Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances and Discipline (1987-1989)"
Judge Lee provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Columbia Chapter of The Links, Inc. (1987-present);

President 1994-98; Vice President 1993-94; Corresponding Secretary 1990-93;

(b)   Columbia Chapter, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. (1992-present); Parliamentarian 1995-97;

(c)   St. Peter's Catholic School Board (1993-97); Chairperson 1995-96;

(d)   St. Peter's Catholic Church Parish Pastoral Council (1998-2001)."

Judge Lee further reported that she was honored by the S.C. Chapter of the National Association of Bench and Bar Spouses in April 1999."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Mack meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service
Mr. Mack was born on September 29, 1952. He is 49 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Mr. Mack 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 Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack 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. Mack reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

(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. Mack 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. Mack to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Mack described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Substance Abuse and Ethics Seminar, MUSC;

(b)   Family Law Seminar;

(c)   Tips for the Advocate;

(d)   That Was the Year that Was;

(e)   A Haven for Dissenters: SC in America;

(f)   Hot Tips: Domestic;

(g)   CLE Seminar;

(h)   Ethics Seminar;

(i)   The Art of Advocacy;

(j)   Family Court Bench/Bar;

(k)   S.C. Auto Insurance Update;

(l)   Ethics: Avoiding Grievance;

(m)   Family Court Practice."
Mr. Mack reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "Adjunct Professor, Business Law, Charleston Southern University"
Mr. Mack reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Mack was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's

He reported the following summary of his experience since law school:

"1980 - Charleston County Public Defender's Office: Public Defender in Family Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit

1980-1983 - Assistant Solicitor, Charleston County, Ninth Judicial Circuit: Duties included prosecution of juveniles in Family Court, representation of Department of Social Services in Family Court, prosecution of defendants in Charleston County Court of General Sessions.

1983-Present - Solo practice of law at 2151 Ashley Phosphate Road, Charleston, specializing in Family Court, criminal and tort representation.
Certified Family Court Mediator"

Mr. Mack provided the following regarding his Family Court experience:
"Divorce and equitable division: Yearly average representation of forty-fifty new clients in areas of divorce and equitable division in Charleston, Berkeley, Dorchester, Georgetown, Orangeburg, Colleton and Beaufort Counties.
Custody: I have extensive experience in all areas related to custody litigation in the Family Court. This includes representation of parents in custody litigation and serving as Guardian ad Litem for children in custody disputes. I am also certified as a Family Court Mediator and have served as a mediator in custody disputes.
Adoption: I have extensive experience in adoption matters in the Family Court, this includes representing adoptive parents and bringing actions for termination of parental rights related to adoption proceedings. I have served as attorney for the adoptive parents in actions brought by the Department of Social Services for termination of

"(a)   federal:   Once or twice a year

(b)   state:     Three - five times or more per week"
Mr. Mack reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   civil:     10%

(b)   criminal:   15%

(c)   domestic:   75%"
Mr. Mack reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   jury:     5%

(b)   non-jury:   95%"
Mr. Mack provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Mack's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   United States v. Gregory Overton, U.S. District Court for District of S.C.; Represented Defendant Gregory Overton in multi-defendant drug conspiracy trial lasting for a period of five weeks. Represented the defendant on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia.

(b)   Shirley Graham v. Stanley Williams, Charleston County Family Court. Multi-day custody trial involving interests of three minor children of the parties. Successfully represented Defendant Williams in action for change in custody. The case was heard on appeal by the S.C. Court of Appeals affirming the trial court and continuing custody with Defendant Williams. Plaintiff filed Writ of Certiorari, which was denied by the S.C. Supreme Court.

(c)   William K. Rader v. Robert E. Sheeley, Dorchester County Family Court. Custody case involving representation of Plaintiff Rader as step-parent seeking custody of child after death of biological mother to whom plaintiff was married. Defendant, biological father, sought order returning custody to him following death of his ex-wife. The case was tried for one and a half days before settlement in the Dorchester Family Court. Biological father and stepfather reached settlement providing for joint custody of minor child.

(d)   Wade M. Jenkins v. Janna Grooms Watkins Jenkins, Charleston County Family Court, S.C. Ct. App. Opinion No. 3331, Heard March 7, 2001- Filed April 16, 2001; Petition for Writ of Certiorari pending before S.C. Supreme Court. Representing husband in appeal of trial court findings regarding equitable division of property, alimony and division of marital debt. Case argued before the S.C. Court of Appeals with resulting order requiring remand of issues to the Charleston County Family Court. Petition for Writ of Certiorari is pending before the S.C. Supreme Court.

(e)   Karis Ward v. Robert Ward, Horry County Family Court, presently on appeal to S.C. Court of Appeals. Representing husband in appeal of trial court findings regarding equitable division of property, alimony and division of marital debt. Case argued before the S.C. Court of Appeals March 6, 2001. The S.C. Court of Appeals has not issued an order as of July 13, 2001."

The following is Mr. Mack's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Shirley Graham v. Stanley Williams, Charleston County Family Court. Multi-day custody trial involving interests of three minor children of the parties. Successfully represented Defendant Williams in action for change in custody. The case was heard on

(b)   Wade M. Jenkins v. Janna Grooms Watkins Jenkins, Charleston County Family Court, S.C. Ct. App. Opinion No. 3331, Heard March 7, 2001- Filed April 16, 2001; Petition for Writ of Certiorari pending before S. C. Supreme Court. Representing husband in appeal of trial court findings regarding equitable division of property, alimony and division of marital debt. Case argued before the S.C. Court of Appeals with resulting order requiring remand of issues to the Charleston County Family Court. Petition for Writ of Certiorari is pending before the S.C. Supreme Court.

(c)   Karis Ward v. Robert Ward, Horry County Family Court, presently on appeal to S. C. Court of Appeals. Representing husband in appeal of trial court findings regarding equitable division of property, alimony and division of marital debt. Case argued before the S.C. Court of Appeals March 6, 2001. The S.C. Court of Appeals has not issued an order as of July 13, 2001."

Mr. Mack reported that he was a candidate for Family Court for the Ninth Circuit in May 1995.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Mack's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Lowcountry Citizens Committee finds Ben F. Mack to be a well-qualified and highly respected candidate. The committee highly recommends Ben F. Mack's election to the position of Family Court judge."
Mr. Mack reported that he is married to Angela Demopoulos Mack. He has three children: Elizabeth Alexandra Mack, age 19; Benjamin Andrew Mack, age 16; and Anna Electra Mack, age 8."
Mr. Mack reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Certified Family Court Mediator."
Mr. Mack provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Vestry Member, St. Stephens Episcopal Church, Charleston;

(b)   Gibbs Museum of Art, South Carolina."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Maddox meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Maddox was born on June 14, 1958. He is 43 years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Mr. Maddox provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Maddox.
Mr. Maddox 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. Maddox reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Maddox 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. Maddox 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. Maddox to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Maddox described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"I have attended a multitude of continuing education courses during my time in practice. These courses range from general CLEs regarding the general practice of law to specialized law education courses. I've tried to vary the courses taken to expand my knowledge in different

"(a)   I taught Business Law at Central Wesleyan College (now known as Southern Wesleyan University) for several years during the late 1980's. I was an adjunct professor of business law teaching undergraduate courses in general business law at Central Wesleyan College;

(b)   1998 Family Judges Conference - Legislative Update;

(c)   1999 Family Judges Conference - Legislative Update;

(d)   1999 South Carolina Solicitors Conference - Legislative."
Mr. Maddox reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Maddox 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. Maddox reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

Mr. Maddox reported that he has not served in the military.

Mr. Maddox reported that he was elected and served as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, District 9, from 1996 - 2000.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Maddox appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Maddox appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Maddox was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983.

Mr. Maddox reported the following regarding his work experience since law school:

"From 1983 until 1986 I practiced as an associate and partner with Charles Welborn, Jr., in a two-man law office in Anderson. My practice was predominantly civil in nature and involved exposure to collection work, civil matters of all nature, and general real estate practice.

From 1986 until 1992 I was an associate and then partner at Jones, Spitz, Moorhead, Baird & Maddox, in Anderson. My practice was predominantly a civil practice with some small amounts of real estate and criminal matters.

From 1992 until 2001, I have been a partner with the Law Firm of Glenn, Haigler, Maddox & McClain. My practice continues to be predominantly a civil practice with some criminal work.

From 1996 until 2000, in addition to practicing law, I served in the South Carolina House of Representatives representing District 9 in Anderson County."

Mr. Maddox reported the following regarding his experience in criminal and civil matters:
"Criminal Matters:

1.   State v. Young - I was appointed co-counsel in the penalty phase section of the State v. Young. This case involved the re-trial of the death penalty phase of a previously tried case. The case required the

2.   During the past year I represented a defendant in a criminal case in which my client was charged with engaging a child for sexual performance, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and assault and battery high and aggravated nature. This case involved the issue of the admission of video taped evidence. The case was dismissed.

3.   I handled a criminal case in 2000 in which my client was charged with grand larceny. The issues were whether or not the defendant and her co-defendant were guilty of stealing $10,000 to $15,000 worth of jewelry and personal items from the home of an acquaintance. The defendant pled guilty.

4.   Currently I am representing a defendant who has been charged with numerous counts of burglary and breaking and entering. The case is currently awaiting trial or other disposition.

5.   I have also been involved, in a peripheral manner, with several criminal cases handled by my law partners including a murder case in which the death penalty was at issue and a case involving a guilty plea for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.

6.   I have represented, either as the attorney or as the guardian ad litem, several juvenile defendants and adult defendants in Family Court. The charges have ranged from criminal domestic violence to various degrees of child abuse and neglect.

While my background in criminal matters is less than my experience in civil matters, I feel that I could compensate for the lack of experience. I am aware of and keep abreast of developments in the case law regarding criminal matters. It is my intention to continue to keep abreast of criminal case law developments and to step up my observation of criminal court pending election to the bench.
Civil Matters:

My primary practice in the last several years in civil court has been as a representative of the plaintiff. In the past I've also represented defendants including corporations, individuals and financial institutions. In the past five years my trial experience has included:

1.   Two complicated medical malpractice cases. One case involved the alleged negligence of a surgeon leading to the death of the plaintiff after a laparoscopic surgery. This case was tried in Chester County. Both plaintiff and defendant utilized experts from throughout the country and the case involved many elements common to most medical malpractice and other tort actions. The case was settled after trail began and after opening statements and the call of two of the plaintiff's

Additionally, I have tried a medical malpractice case in Richland County involving obstetrical malpractice. The case was tried for approximately eight days and involved fairly complicated issues of causation.

2.   I was co-counsel with my law partner in a dental malpractice case tried for three days in Anderson County involving the issue of malpractice resulting from a broken jaw during a dental procedure.

3.   Currently I am involved as co-counsel in a nationwide class action filed in Federal Court in Anderson County. This case involves the issue of fraudulent interest computation by a lending institution. The case has been filed and the nationwide class has been certified. The trial is expected in October 2001.

4.   I have been associated with co-counsel in another Federal Class Action case involving the allegations of fraudulent recordation of credit information. That case should be tried sometime in the late fall of 2001.

5.   I have, in addition to the above, handled numerous automobile accident cases that have settled prior to trial.

6.   Currently I am representing a civil defendant in a breach of contract action that has been set for trial for June of 2001.

7.   I have also represented a physician as personal attorney in malpractice cases and in other general litigation matters.

8.   I am currently involved in numerous litigation matters including a case based upon negligent construction of a subdivision and the subsequent denial of a payment bond. The complaint has been filed; the trial has not been set.

9.   I am also currently representing a large homeowners association in a law suit against adjoining home owners regarding the application of restrictions to the adjoining land owner's property. The case was tried and a verdict was granted to my clients. The case involved the application of restrictions to property and the interpretation and restoration of the restrictions and by-laws of the homeowners association. The case is currently on Appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court."
Mr. Maddox reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   1996-2000- Infrequent.

2000-2001

I am currently involved in two Federal Class Actions that have required numerous appearances in District Court.

(b)   State:     I have appeared in State Court either in civil, criminal or domestic matters on average twice a week for the past five years."
Mr. Maddox reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     30%

(b)   Criminal:   10%

(c)   Domestic:   60%"
Mr. Maddox reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     10%

(b)   Non-jury:   90%"
Mr. Maddox provided that he most often served as "both as sole counsel and as co-counsel."

The following is Mr. Maddox's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Young. I was appointed co-counsel in the sentencing phase of Kevin Dean Young. The State had obtained a guilty verdict and sentence of death in a prior trial. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for the retrial of the penalty phase only. A jury was selected in Lancaster County and brought to Anderson for the trial. Every case potentially involving the death penalty has significant ramifications not only for the defendant but the community, attorneys and other Court personnel. Apart from its nature, the case was significant from a personal legal perspective because it exposed me to the complicated legal issues associated with a criminal trial in general and a death penalty trial in particular.

(b)   Linda A. Massingale, Ruth I. Bickel, Denise M. McTigue, Marie A. Pacifico, and all other similarly situated v. The Money Store, Inc., TMS Mortgage, Inc., and John Does 1-100. This is an ongoing case in Federal Court. The case involves a large nationwide class action against the defendant. The class has been certified by the District Court and two appeals have been taken to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. We have prevailed on both appeals and are now awaiting trial in April or May of 2001. The case is significant in that it involves unique issues of interest computation and the possibility of up to 20,000 class members seeking damages against the defendant. I am co-counsel in this case with several out of state attorneys.

(c)   Laughridge v. Parkinson, et al. - This case was a medical malpractice case involving complicated issues of causation and damage. The law suit was on behalf of the minor child injured at birth. The case was tried initially in Greenville County, South Carolina, over a period of approximately two weeks. After deliberating for a day and a half, a mistral was declared because of a hung jury. Approximately one year later the case was retried for approximately ten days and the jury returned a verdict for $5,000,000.00. Prior to the first trial, the Circuit Court granted partial Summary Judgment for the hospital. I was involved in the appeal to the Supreme Court which resulted in a ruling that the abolition of the Doctrine of Charitable Immunity was prospective in application only. The case was significant because almost every possible evidentiary scenario was presented during both trials.

(d)   Kneale v. Bonds, 452 S.E.2d 840, 317 SC Court of Appeals 1994. This case was significant in that it involved interpretation of the covenants of a horizontal property regime and a mandatory injunction for the removal of a structure. I represented 12 homeowners who sought a mandatory injunction to have a structure removed from the regime property. After an approximate three-day non-jury trial, the Circuit Court ruled in the favor of the defendants. On appeal, the Supreme Court found in favor of my clients and issued an order requiring defendants to remove a previously constructed building on the property. The case is significant in that it involved interpretation of legal documents as well as equitable principals of law.

(e)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Broome, 413 S.E.2d 835, SC 48 and SC (SC 1992). I was appointed to represent Mrs. Broome in a DSS termination of parental rights action. Mrs. Broome was a schizophrenic who opposed the termination of her rights. Subsequent to the trial, Mrs. Broome asked me to appeal and then disappeared. After perfecting her appeal, I filed an affidavit with the Supreme Court and was asked to do a brief and argue certain elements of her appeal. The case was argued before the South Carolina Supreme Court and has been cited many times by the Court as an example of one of the standards for termination of parental rights in South Carolina."

The following is Mr. Maddox's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   In the matter of Marshall, S.C. Supreme Court - 03/23/98, 498 S.E.2d 869, 331 SC 514 (SC 1998)

(b)   Laughridge v. Parkinson, (co-counsel) - 04/01/91, 403 S.E.2d 120, 304 SC 51 (SC 1991)

(c)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Broome, 1/13/92, 413 S.E.2d 835, 307 SC 48 (SC 1992)

(d)   Kneale v. Bonds, et al., 452 S.E.2d 840; 317 SC 262 Court of Appeals 1994."

Mr. Maddox did not report any criminal appeals that he has personally handled.

Mr. Maddox provided the following information regarding unsuccessful candidacies: "I was defeated for re-election in 2000 for House District 9, South Carolina House of Representatives."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Maddox's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Mr. Maddox was found to be a most competent lawyer. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Mr. Maddox is married to Victoria Tobin Maddox. He has three children: Jesse Cordell Maddox, III, age 15; Brett Garland Maddox, age 12; and Jacob Hunter Maddox, age 6.
Mr. Maddox reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"From 1983 to present:

(a)   Anderson County Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;

(d)   American Trial Lawyer's Association;

(e)   American Bar Association."
Mr. Maddox provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Rotary Club of Anderson;

(b)   YMCA - member of Board of Directors from 1994 to present; currently ex-officio member of the Board;

(c)   Past and present member of the SC Bar House of Delegates;

(d)   Hospice of the Upstate."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge McFaddin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge McFaddin was born on November 4, 1954. He is 47 years old and a resident of Gable, South Carolina. Judge McFaddin provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge McFaddin.
Judge McFaddin 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 McFaddin reported to the House and Senate Ethics Committees that he has made the following campaign expenditures: "As of July 11, 2001: Copies $36.50; postage $68.00; paper $12.00; envelopes $24.00."
Judge McFaddin 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 McFaddin 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 McFaddin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge McFaddin described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2000   Domestic Violence;

Ethical Considerations in Family Law;

Magistrate's Mandatory School (1 week);
1999     Criminal Domestic Violence;

'Hot Tips' in Family Law;

Traffic Laws;
1998     Family Court Update;
1997     'Hot Tips' in Family Law;

Family Law Bench/Bar;

Ethics in Family Law;
1996     Alternative Dispute Resolution;

Medicare & Medicaid;
1995     'Hot Tips' in Family Law;

Adoption;

Suing the Federal Government;
1994     Defending Juveniles in Family Court;

DUI Defense;

Trial Practice."
Judge McFaddin reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "In 1990/1991 I taught at Central Carolina Technical College in the Paralegal Division. I taught (1) Trusts/Estates (2) Personal Injury (3) Workers Compensation."
Judge McFaddin reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge McFaddin did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation did reveal evidence of a troubled financial status. However, the Commission is satisfied that Judge McFaddin is now handling his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge McFaddin 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 McFaddin reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge McFaddin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge McFaddin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

Judge McFaddin described his legal experience as follows:
"After my 1985 law school graduation, I worked as a law clerk to the Hon. Rodney A. Peoples until August 1986. As a law clerk I wrote orders, researched the law, and assisted with Judge Peoples' docket control practices.

In August 1986 I went to work as an associate at Bryan, Bahnmuller, King, Goldman & McElveen in Sumter, S.C. I handled family law and personal injury cases on a 50/50 basis.

In June 1987 I was offered a job at the Law Office of John E. Miles. I handled family law matters mostly, but I handled also some personal injury and consumer law cases.

In January 1988 I left the above job and worked as an associate at Atkinson & Davis in Sumter, S.C. until August 1990. I handled a good many family law cases, some personal injury cases, and a few criminal law cases to include an appeal argued before the Supreme Court.

In August 1990 I opened my own solo practice. I was a sole practitioner until August 1998. Again my practice was based heavily upon family law cases. I did serve as a part-time general sessions public defender from August 1990 until March 1991. I was also a part-time prosecutor in magistrate's court from late 1991 until the end of 1994. In 1994 I also began to serve as the juvenile public defender in the family court of Sumter County. I did this until August 1998. Overall, my practice was devoted 65% to family law cases."

Judge McFaddin reported the following regarding his experience within each of the following Family Court practice areas:
Divorce and equitable distribution: About 50% of my family law practice involved these areas. My divorce cases included contested and unconstested divorces. Equitable distribution issues were most common in the constested cases, but such property issues were also present in the uncontested cases. The contested cases were often settled by negotiations between the lawyers with, of course, the participation of the parties. As would be expected, the contested cases usually began with the parties, one or both, vehemently opposed to settlement; however, in most of these cases the issues began to become uncontested as the parties got over their anger. One contested cases stands out well: Atkinson v. Atkinson. I represented the Plaintiff/mother who sought a divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness. Defendant/father fought this allegation, yet he conceded all other issues to include custody. This case had its tense moments,

The equitable division cases I handled usually centered around real estate and retirement plans/accounts. The personal property most often was not an issue. And, with Shaw Air Force Base close to Sumter, the retirement contests often involved military retirement plans. QDROs were used with several of the retirement cases.
Child Custody: About 20-25% of the cases I handled involved contested custody of children. Almost all of my family law cases saw custody as an issue, but it was often an agreed upon or settled issue. Naturally, this area was the most litigated area. The client's emotions were always high. To the client, the case never moved fast enough, the use of a guardian was often questioned, and the need for expert evaluations (pyschologists) was seen as just another expense. These were the cases where I could always expect to be called after hours. In Follin v. Follin, one of my most bitterly fought cases, I represented the father who was in my office every day. His hatred of his wife was so open to all. Egan v. Egan was another contested case where I represented the mother. Before the case was over not only did each parent want custody, but each set of grandparents wanted custody.
Adoptions: About 10% of my family practice involved adoptions. I like these cases. A child was being 'chosen' by two people who wanted a child, who wanted a family. I sometimes carried a camera to these hearings to take pictures of the judge, the child and the new parents. While these cases were most often uncontested, these cases demanded strict attention to statutory law and case law. Adoption laws are strictly construed, and I would have been devastated if I had 'botched' an adoption. I often thought that an ideal practice would be one devoted solely to adoptions.

Abuse and neglect: My involvement with these cases usually came by appointment by the court. DSS was always involved. The neglect allegations most often revolved around drug or alcohol abuse. The abuse cases most often involved sexual abuse. These were tragic cases. No matter which person I represented in these types of cases, no person 'won.' These cases were the opposite of adoption cases. Where adopted children were wanted and chosen, children of abuse and neglect are not wanted. The longest case in this area that I became involved in was a pro bono case where I represented the father: DSS v. Benjamin. This file remained open at least five years, and review hearings were frequent. None of the parties could read, all were

"(a)   federal:   I was admitted to federal court, but I never had a case in that court.

(b)   state:     In the five years before I became a magistrate in 1998, I practiced all the time in state court: family, civil, magistrate, some probate, some criminal"

"(a)   civil:     25%

(b)   criminal:   10%

(c)   domestic:   65%"
Judge McFaddin reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   jury: Regarding my civil cases, only 1-2% went to a jury. Almost all civil cases settled before trial or 'on the courthouse steps.'

(b)   non-jury: If non-jury includes family court cases, then at least 50% of these cases were tried non-jury."
Judge McFaddin provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge McFaddin's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Atkinson v. Atkinson. This case was not appealed, but it was perhaps the most bitterly contested case over the divorce ground only. All other issues, to include custody, were settled. The husband represented by Ed Ervin, Esq., refused to admit his alcohol and drug abuse. The husband was so volatile, especially when using alcohol. My client, the wife, was terrified of him. At least once he called my office stating he would come kill her and me. We took him seriously and called law enforcement. The case ended, and later the husband was sent to prison on an unrelated matter. This case highlighted the potential for violence associated with family law cases.

(b)   Tindal v. Tindal. In this case I was the guardian ad litem for the child. It was significant to me due to the dynamics. The child's paternal grandparents, who were very wealthy, sought custody of their grandson. The natural mother fought to keep custody. The natural father answered his complaint agreeing that his parents be granted custody. My investigation as the guardian revealed that the mother was an "exotic dancer" whose lifestyle was most questionable. Another odd twist was that the grandparents did not seek custody of the older son, only the younger son. Strange to me. The case went to trial before Judge Marion Myers for two days. The attorneys, Henry C. Wilson and Frances C. Matthews, battled long and hard. I recommended that custody be granted to the grandparents. Shortly after the trial the natural father was killed when he slammed into a train, a death many believed to be suicide. I spent a lot of time on this case. It was a good learning experience. It was not appealed.

(c)   State v. Chandler. Here I represented a 15-year-old juvenile charged with burglary, CSC and murder. He and four other juveniles were charged with raping and murdering two elderly women in Sumter. The State, led by Angela Taylor, Esq., sought to have this case waived to general sessions. The waiver hearing was held by Judge Wylie Caldwell. The hearing lasted two full days. It was a media event. I spent a tremendous amount of time gathering information for the waiver hearing. The Kent guidelines were used and followed by Judge Caldwell who waived the case to general sessions. (Just after the waiver this case was transferred to a general sessions public defender, and I also became a magistrate.) My client steadfastly denied any involvement. His IQ was in the mid 70s. This case was significant because it was a big media event. Law enforcement was heavily involved, and for the solicitor the case became a political issue. Regarding the Kent criteria, this case was a good example of how those factors are weighed.

(d)   McGhinnis v. McGhinnis. This was an uncontested divorce where there were no children, but a few debts. The parties were very young. I represented the wife; the husband was pro se. After the divorce hearing the parties went to lunch together. The following week they wanted to 'undo' the divorce. It was too late, so they decided to remarry. Fate stepped in though. A few days later the husband was killed in a wreck. To me this case is memorable because it highlighted the youth factor in many marriages and the random tragedy of life.

(e)   State v. Boys, 302 S.C. 545, 397 S.E.2d 529 (1990). In this case I was, at the trial level, assistant counsel for the sixteen-year-old defendant charged with murder. He shot his friend with a shotgun. Regarding the appeal, I was lead counsel. I prepared the brief and I argued the case before the S.C. Supreme Court. This case was significant to me because it was my first murder case; and it was my first argument before the Supreme Court.

Because I am seeking a family court judgeship, I did not cite any civil actions."

The following is Judge McFaddin's account of civil appeals he has personally handled: "Regarding family law cases, I was never involved in an appeal from family court."

The following is a report of Judge McFaddin's judicial experience:
"Magistrate, Chief. Sumter County, South Carolina; Appointed July 1998, 1998 to present.

The Commission believes that Judge McFaddin's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The committee is of the opinion that Judge McFaddin is qualified for the position of family court judge. As a result of its investigation and interview with Judge McFaddin, the committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Judge McFaddin is married to Cindy Johnston McFaddin. He has two children: Megan McFaddin, age 20, and Cassie McFaddin, age 18.
Judge McFaddin reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar from 1985 to present;

(b)   American Bar Association, 1985 to 1990;

(c)   Sumter County Bar, 1985 to 1997;

(d)   S.C. Trial Lawyers, 1986 to 1991;

(e)   American Trial Lawyers Association, sporadically from 1986 to 1995."
Judge McFaddin provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   I have been a volunteer firefighter since 1974;

(b)   I am a member and Clerk of Session (Elders) at Salem Black River Presbyterian Church."

In addition, Judge McFaddin provided: "The best way to try to answer this questions is to respectfully ask that you consider my resume and curriculum vitae. Let me highlight some items. First, I believe in education to include continuing legal education. I believe every person needs an education beyond high school. Second, I believe in hard work. Notice all the jobs I have had, some of which were not all glamorous or easy. I am not afraid of work. I cited my work history all the way back to my days in the hot tobacco fields. From all of my jobs I have learned something about myself and other people, people of both races. I have worked with hourly farm employees and highly paid state officials, and I enjoyed my times with both ends of this spectrum. As a result, I am comfortable with the powerful and the powerless, the wealthy and the poor, the educated and the uneducated.

I am a determined person. It is not easy to be a lawyer today, much less a sole practitioner. I was able to build a good solo practice, and I was reluctant to leave it in 1998. I was grossing a six-figure income, yet I wanted to prove myself as a magistrate. I believe I have succeeded.

I have been involved in my county and community. I still serve my community and county as a volunteer firefighter. I regularly leave my bed and meals to respond to fires and medical emergencies. I have seen injury and death, I have seen a family's home and possessions destroyed by fire. In some way I hope I have helped these people. The rare 'thank you' means a lot.

Please note the award I got from the YWCA of the Upper Lowlands, the 'Judiciary Award.' I have tried hard as a magistrate to establish a separate Criminal Domestic Violence Court in Sumter County. While I did not do this for the sake of recognition, I do appreciate the award, and I hope to have helped highlight the domestic violence issue in Sumter County. Note also please the 'Teen Court' recognition I got. This is a program begun in Sumter County by the Sumter Police Department to divert first-time juvenile offenders by having them tried by their peers with a jury of their peers. I served as the judge numerous times in the trying to help get the program started. I did this without pay, and I hope some children were saved.

I have several beliefs that I have developed based on my life experiences:

(1)   The best thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother.

(2)   The world wants results, not excuses.

(3)   People do what they want to do.

(4)   How a person treats the powerless is more revealing than how he treats the powerful.

(5)   Speak to people."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Mullinax meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Mullinax was born on May 30, 1945. He is 56 years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Mr. Mullinax provided in his

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Mullinax.
Mr. Mullinax 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. Mullinax reported that he has made $57.80 in campaign expenditures for: "stamps on letters to members of the General Assembly announcing my intent to be a candidate for judicial office."
Mr. Mullinax 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. Mullinax 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. Mullinax to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Mullinax described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Workers Comp seminar-March, 2001; 6.0 credit hours;

(b)   Masters of Workers Compensation-April 28, 2000; 6.0 hours;

(c)   Tort Law Update, 2000;-6.0 hours;

(d)   2000 Auto Torts Seminar-12/2000; 10 hours;

(e)   Auto Insurance Seminar-10/27/00; 6.0 hours;

(f)   Workers Compensation seminar-4/23/99; 6.0 hours;

(g)   Workers Compensation seminar-4/24/98; 6.0 hours;

(h)   Seeing The Jury Trial-4/17/98; 5.75 hours;

(i)   Current Issues in South Carolina Elder Law-7/30/98; 6.0 hours;

(j)   Tax Seminar-3/27/98; 1.50 hours;

(k)   1998 Auto Torts Seminar-12/4/98; 10 hours;

(l)   Civil Trial Techniques-1997; 6.0 hours;

(m)   The Top Ten Cases-1997; 6.0 hours;

(n)   Medical Malpractice-1996; 6.0 hours."
Mr. Mullinax reported that he gave a presentation in "approximately 1990 to nurse professionals on malpractice in Asheville, North Carolina."
Mr. Mullinax reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Mullinax 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. Mullinax reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV." Mr. Mullinax further stated: "Since I am a sole practitioner and have had excellent walk-in clientele over the past years, I have seen no need to subscribe to Martindale-Hubbell."

Mr. Mullinax reported his military service as follows:
"United States Army, Medical Service Corps; Lieutenant Colonel USAR (Retired, 24 Years Service) Honorable."

Mr. Mullinax reported that he had held the following public offices:
"Anderson County Attorney-1985-1989; appointed by County Council;
South Carolina State Senate-Anderson County-1989-1992; elected."
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Mullinax appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Mullinax appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Mullinax was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

Mr. Mullinax described his legal experience since law school as follows:
"Watkins, Vandiver, Kirven, Gable, and Gray- Anderson, S.C. 1973-1977;
Long, Thomasina & Mullinax- Anderson, S.C. 1977-1989;
Dunaway, Mullinax & Standeffer- Anderson, S.C. 1989-1990;

My practice since the beginning has been a general civil practice. I have been an active trial lawyer in the Court of Common Pleas, Family Court, and Probate Court. In addition, I have closed numerous real estate loans and have handled commercial closings. I have formed corporations and partnerships and simple wills. My practice includes appearing before the Master in Equity, Administrative Law Judges, and the Worker's Compensation Commission. During the course of my practice, I have represented defendants in the Court of General Sessions and served as one of the two trial attorneys in a death penalty case."

Mr. Mullinax described his experience in criminal and civil matters as follows:
"Criminal Matters

I have chosen not to focus my private practice in criminal matters. In the past five years, I have represented defendants in simple assault, simple possession of drugs, DUI, open container and other similar matters. Prior to that time as previously alluded to, I did serve as one of two trial attorneys representing a defendant in a death penalty case; State v. Lou Ann Upchurch et al., and served as private prosecutor in a manslaughter case for a family who chose to have me represent them in lieu of the Solicitor. That took place approximately fifteen years ago.

While I have not chosen to practice in the area of criminal law, I have kept up with the advance in criminal law and penalties, through service on the Public Defender Board and the trial of a case, whether it be civil or criminal, is still a trial to a jury. I am familiar with the laws and the requirements where they differ in criminal procedure from civil procedure.
Civil Matters

My practice has primarily been as a representative of plaintiffs in civil cases and during the past five years, I have handled cases including personal injury (automobile accidents); workers compensation, including total disability and permanent partial disability cases; social security disability cases; trespass actions; Probate disputes involving testacy or intestacy; a major lawsuit involving will or no will where the original will was lost and a copy was attempted to be proved; I have represented land owners in condemnation actions by governmental entities and inverse condemnation actions. I primarily represent plaintiffs, however I represent certain corporations in which I have participated in large scale commercial closings and mergers; employment discrimination cases in Federal Court including Title VII discrimination against the EEOC.

I believe my expertise in civil matters in unparalleled in the legal profession as I have actively participated in all areas of trial practice and general civil practice including wills and simple trusts, real estate closings, both residential and commercial; formations of corporations and partnerships; advising homeowners associations and of course, my prior experience representing Anderson County for five years stands me in good stead as far as municipal and governmental law."
Mr. Mullinax reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   One (1) case

(b)   State:     Seventy-five (75) cases per year"

Mr. Mullinax reported:

"I have appeared in either Civil, Family or Probate Court several times each week during the past five years. "
Mr. Mullinax reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     75%

(b)   Criminal:   5%

(c)   Domestic:   20%"
Mr. Mullinax reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     20% Most cases are settled before trial.

(b)   Non-jury:   10%"
Mr. Mullinax provided that he most often served as lead counsel.

The following is Mr. Mullinax's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Michael W. Ilcheson and Janet Ilcheson vs. South Carolina Department of Transportation, County of Anderson and Anderson School District 1, (Case No.: 98-CP-04-0074, Court of Common Pleas, Anderson County). This case was tried before a jury in Anderson County resulting in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $43,000.00. I represented the plaintiff in this inverse condemnation action in which the S.C.D.O.T. had taken all of the water run-off from the Wren High School area and channeled it into a 30-inch diameter pipe so that it ran across the residential lot of the plaintiffs. S.C.D.O.T. contended that a drainage easement which only appeared on a plat gave them the right to drain water from the surrounding non-contiguous area onto plaintiff's property. The actions of the S.C.D.O.T. resulted in a raging torrent of water every time in rained, creating a dangerous condition on the rear of plaintiff's lot.

The case is significant in that the judge and jury found that the mere presence of an easement on a plat does not give the State the authority to take property without paying just compensation where there is no evidence of public dedication. After the jury verdict, the matter was not appealed.

(b)   Clark v. Ross, 284 S.C. 543, 328 S.E.2d 91 (S.C. App. 1985). This case involved the wrongful death of a six-year old child, who died of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and was a malpractice action brought against the general practitioner and pediatrician for their failure to diagnose and treat the child for the disease, causing her death. The case was tried twice when the first case resulted in a mistrial. In the second trial the Anderson County jury awarded $175,000.00 in actual damages for the death of the six-year old child. This was the first case tried to a jury verdict for medical malpractice successfully in this County at the time it was rendered. The case was appealed and we were successful in defending the jury's verdict. The case additionally was significant in that the court upheld the right to introduce evidence regarding the statistical evidence of survival had treatment been initiated at an earlier time from the expert testimony presented at trial.

(c)   Yeargin v. Wicker, 295 S.C. 521, 369 S.E.2d 844 (1988). I represented the Defendant, Anderson County, in this case, which was brought after I drafted an ordinance which created a special tax district in the entire unincorporated area of Anderson County and imposed a three mill/tax in order to provide sewer service to the unincorporated areas of the County.

Suit was brought by Mr. Yeargin alleging that the ordinance was unconstitutional and I was successful in achieving a verdict before the trial judge and in upholding the trial court's order on appeal and also appealing that portion of the order which sought to restrict the imposition of the tax. This case is significant in that it was one of the first cases in the state to use the provision of S.C. Code Ann. Section 4-9-30(5) which allowed counties to create a special tax district in an entire unincorporated area to provide services. As a result of this decision, counties were freed to utilize this code provision to provide services throughout their counties even though it may take years for all of the unincorporated area to benefit.

The case is additionally significant because the trial court had held that individuals living in the unincorporated area who already had service did not have to pay the tax. The Supreme Court struck down the trial court's ruling upon my appeal of this issue, which made the ordinance truly workable.

(d)   Matter of Hall, 318 S.C. 188, 456 S.E.2d 439 (1995). This was a Probate matter where I represented the heirs who opposed the life tenants' disclaimer of an interest in certain property. The matter was tried non-jury and resulted in the Court's upholding my position that the life tenant's acceptance of interest in an estate invalidated a subsequent attempt to disclaim the life estate and the remainder interest in the property would be characterized as contingent remainders and not vested remainders.

The matter is significant in that it dealt with an interpretation of the disclaimer statute in South Carolina as well as the provisions of the internal revenue code as they pertain to disclaimers, and in addition, dealt with future interests as to whether or not certain interest to be possessed by grandchildren were contingent or vested.

(e)   Grace T. Gunnels, et al. v. Rebecca W. Tiller, Court of Common Pleas, County of Abbeville, Case No.: 97-CP-01-249. I represented the plaintiffs in this matter which involved the construction of a deed from the Master-in-Equity which in January of 1983 had conveyed a 185 acre tract in Abbeville County to three individuals; Monroe Tiller, Ozzie Tiller, and Gary Gunnels. There was no percentage ownership set out in the Master's deed, although my client's predecessor, Monroe Tiller had contributed 53% of the consideration for the property. Ozzie Tiller contributed 33% and Gary Gunnels contributed 14% but the deed did not reflect any percentages. Ozzie Tiller bought Gary Gunnels' interest which again was a deed which did not recite anything other than "all my right, title and interest." Ozzie died and his widow claimed that she owned 2/3 of the property. This case was tried before a jury in Abbeville County which brought back a verdict in favor of the plaintiff upholding every position that we advocated in the matter. The matter is significant in that there is a presumption that where two or more persons take as tenants in common, under an instrument which is silent in regard to their shares, the presumption is that the shares are equal. However, this position is rebuttable and by the evidence that we were able to present where we had to overcome Dead Man's Statute, hearsay and other evidentiary issues, allowed us to convince the jury of the respective percentage ownership."

The following is Mr. Mullinax's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Matter of Will of Hall, 318 S.C. 188, 456 S.E.2d, 439 (S.C. App., March 27, 1995) (No. 2324);

(b)   Ex parte Yeargin, 295 S.C. 521, 369 S.E.2d 844 (S.C., Jun 27, 1988) (No. 22883);

(c)   Glenn v. School Dist. No. Five of Anderson County, 294 S.C. 530, 366 S.E.2d 47 (S.C. App. Feb. 29, 1988) (No. 1102);

(d)   Gibson v. Belcher, 287 S.C. 315, 338 S.E.2d 330 (S.C. Dec. 17, 1985) (No. 22430);

(e)   Clark v. Ross, 284 S.C. 543, 328 S.E.2d 91 (S.C. App. March 6, 1985) (No. 0406)."

Mr. Mullinax reported that he has not previously held judicial office.

Mr. Mulllinax reported that he was an unsuccessful candidate in the Anderson County Senate election. He was defeated in the Primary election.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Mullinax's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Mullinax to be "a most competent lawyer. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Mr. Mullinax is widowed. He has two children: Lee Ashley Mullinax, age 26, and Carter Ann Mullinax, age 23.
Mr. Mullinax reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   American Bar Association, 1973-Present;

(b)   American Trial Lawyers Association, 1977-Present;

(c)   South Carolina Bar Association, 1973-Present;

(d)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Board of Directors 1997-2000."
Mr. Mullinax provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Salvation Army Board of Directors;

(b)   Greater Anderson Rotary Club;

(c)   Mason and Shriner."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

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

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Murphy.
Judge Murphy 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 Murphy reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Murphy 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 Murphy 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 Murphy to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Murphy described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Courses offered by S.C. Criminal Justice Academy - Municipal Court;

(b)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention;

(c)   Tort Seminars;

(d)   Probate Seminars."
Judge Murphy reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "I taught Fundamentals of Business Law at University of South Carolina-Aiken for a summer session and fall semester. This course involved all aspects of business law and was taught to juniors on college level."
Judge Murphy reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Murphy 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 Murphy reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Murphy appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Murphy appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Murphy was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.

Judge Murphy provided the following information regarding his legal experience:

"July 7, 1969 to November 30, 1971 - Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation;

December 1, 1971 to July 1, 1973 - Coleman and Murphy, Edgefield, South Carolina;

July 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974 - Associate, O. Douglas Smith, North Augusta, South Carolina;

January 1, 1975 to May 15, 2000 - Smith and Murphy, North Augusta, South Carolina;

May 15, 2000 to present date - Thomas P. Murphy, P.C.

My law practice has been one of a general nature since its inception with strong emphasis on real estate for the first five years. The emphasis then changed to Family Law for a period of approximately ten years. The remaining years have seen more emphasis on trial litigation and probate practice."

Judge Murphy further provided regarding his experience: "After approximately five (5) years, I made a decision not to emphasize a criminal practice. While learning and remaining current on matters pertaining to criminal law was interesting, the every day practice was not appealing.

It is my belief that my experience as the Municipal Judge for the City of North Augusta for the past seventeen (17) years has prepared me to preside over Court of General Sessions. In that capacity, I have qualified jury panels, overseen the selection of a jury, handled pre-trial motions, conducted trials and handled post-trial matters. While the normal case of the municipal level would not involve the complexities of a general session case, I have had to make decisions concerning evidentiary matters and have had to structure charges of law to a jury.

My experience in civil matters over the past five (5) years has been broad. While handling a normal number of motor vehicle accidents, I also had the opportunity to handle an ERISA case in the United States District Court in South Carolina. This case involved the determination of the proper beneficiary of a profit sharing plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 294 S.C. Section 1001.

A second case of interest involved the estate of a wife versus her husband's estate. These people died within a short period of time and their marriage was a second one for each. The wife predeceased the husband by approximately four months. Issues raised in this litigation were who owned certain items of property, whether the husband's estate had converted property of the wife's estate, what constituted gifts and whether an oral statement made by wife during marriage confirmed an agreement of the parties that wife would wear a diamond engagement ring owned by husband only during the term of their marriage or until her death. This involved both the application of the Dead Man's Statute and the Statute of Frauds.

In my civil practice, I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants."
Judge Murphy reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   two

(b)   State:     five

(c)   Other:     n/a"
Judge Murphy reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     40%

(b)   Criminal:   0%

(c)   Domestic:   30%"
Judge Murphy reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     10%

(b)   Non-jury:   90%"
Judge Murphy provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Murphy's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Donald K. Holley as Personal Representative of the Estate of Peggy H. Strickland, Plaintiff, vs. Estate of F. Bishop Strickland, et al., Defendants (98-CP-02-410). This case is described above and it involved numerous issues which demanded thorough investigation of factual matters and research of legal issues in preparation of trial.

(b)   Cathy E. Merchant & Henry's Pharmacy, Inc., Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiffs, vs. Vickie B. Corder (formerly Forrest), Defendant (8:96-1885-20). This case is cited above and it involved Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. A thorough analysis of existing federal case law was necessary in preparation of this trial. I represented the defendant and we were awarded judgment at district court level. This case was appealed and 4th Circuit affirmed trial court.

(c)   Donald Finn, Plaintiff vs. Louten Britt, Defendant (Aiken County). This case was handled approximately twenty (20) years ago and it involved Breach of Contract, Fraud in Inducement of contract and several other related business issues. This case involved the clearing of several hundred acres of land in preparation to plant kiwi fruit in Aiken County. The complexities of clearing wooded land to prepare it to plant was a learning experience and a factually demanding one. The law issues were not that difficult after the personal investigation and discovery was completed. It took approximately five (5) days to try.

(d)   Ellen D. Wyatt, Plaintiff vs. Donald E. Tudor, Defendant (00-CP-02-481). The uniqueness of this case involved a "fly-in community" in Aiken County. The concept in this development was the development of property around an airport. The runway and the initial lots were developed approximately twenty (20) years ago. Each land owner who purchased a lot and used the runway agreed to pay annual maintenance fees of $300.00. Due to financial reversals, the original developer sold the airstrip to a third individual in 1987. The wife of the original developer re-purchased a substantial portion of the undeveloped property and attempted to market these properties. The owner of the runway now asserts that she owes maintenance fees for each lot from 1987 to 2000.

The owner of the runway did not attempt to collect the maintenance fees from the prior owner of these undeveloped lots for the thirteen (13) year period.

In my capacity as attorney for plaintiff, I have sought a declaratory judgment that all owners of property have a right to use the runway, that maintenance fees for the runway for thirteen (13) years are not owed and that the owner of the runway alternately has waived his right to seek these fees and that the statute of limitations prevent collections for more that three (3) years if owed.

(e)   Cathy E. Merchant, Plaintiff vs. Bankers National Life Insurance Co., NationsBank and Vickie B. Corder, Defendants; C/A No. 6:98-623-24

This case involved a decision on who is the proper beneficiary of a life insurance policy owned by a profit sharing plan. The plan was a 'pension plan' within the meaning of ERISA.

Bankers National issued the policy on the decedent's life. NationsBank was the trustee of the plan and Mrs. Corder was the former wife of the decedent. The plaintiff was the girlfriend of the decedent.

Ms. Merchant and Ms. Corder were the principals in case (B) cited above.

The defendants relied on the Order of the previous case and pled the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel against the plaintiff. Further they relied on ERISA which required spousal consent before a participant in a retirement plan can change a beneficiary other than his or her spouse. The defendants prevailed in this action."

The following is Judge Murphy's account of a civil appeal he has personally handled:

"Cathy E. Merchant and Henry's Pharmacy, Incorporated Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiff v. Vickie B. Corder, Defendant; United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) No. 98-2128; Decided July 12, 1999 (unpublished)"

Judge Murphy listed the following public offices he has held:

"1980-1983: Municipal Judge, Town of Jackson;

1984-2001: Municipal Judge, City of North Augusta.

Each position was appointed.

The present jurisdiction of the municipal courts is limited to imposition of incarceration for a period up to thirty (30) days and/or monetary fines up to $500.00 plus court costs."

Judge Murphy stated that in his capacity as municipal judge both of the Town of Jackson and the City of North Augusta he did not issue any written orders.

Judge Murphy listed the following as his employment while serving in his capacity as a judge: "I maintained a private law practice in the

Judge Murphy listed the following as his unsuccessful candidacies for elective, judicial, or other public office:

"Family Court, Second Judicial Circuit - 1983;

South Carolina Senate - 1984."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Murphy's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Judge Thomas Murphy to be a qualified and highly regarded candidate. The committee positively approves of his candidacy for the circuit court bench."
Judge Murphy is married to Judy H. Murphy. He has two children: Shannon Murphy Day, age 32, and Shelley Murphy Bazemore, age 26.
Judge Murphy reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;

(c)   American Bar Association."
Judge Murphy provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Sertoma Club - North Augusta;

(b)   Knights of Columbus."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Rita J. Roache meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Roache was born on May 13, 1960. She is 41 years old and a resident of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Ms. Roache 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 1988.

A question did arise as to whether Ms. Roache meets the residency requirements for this position. Ms. Roache lists Cary, North Carolina on her credit history as a former address for 1999. Ms. Roache

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Roache.
Ms. Roache demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Roache reported that she has made approximately $268.13 in campaign expenditures for stationery, secretarial assistance, and postage.
Ms. Roache testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. Roache testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

"(a)   Varied courses with a concentration in Family Law.

(b)   Certified as an arbitrator for National Association of Securities Dealers, also attended training for certification as Circuit Court arbitrator.

(c)   Exceeded required number of hours most years."

Regarding the teaching of law-related courses, Ms. Roache reported that she "participated in a panel for an Ethics CLE sponsored by the S.C. Bar. We discussed vignettes and the ethical considerations.

I was on the panel of a CLE, Victims of Crimes, where I did a presentation on physical cruelty as a grounds for divorce on August 17th, and then again on September 21st."
Ms. Roache reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Roache was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Ms. Roache reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. Roache appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Ms. Roache appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Roache was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.

She summarizes her experience since law school as follows:

"From 1988-1990, I was employed by the S.C. Department of Social Services in the Office of Child Support Enforcement. I was responsible for handling child support cases in five counties. This was entirely in the Family Court. From 1991-2000, I was in private practice in the firm of Brown & Roache in Charleston, S.C. The firm was a general practice and my practice focused in family law. In 2001, I accepted a position with Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Inc. as a staff attorney. My practice consists of providing legal services for victims of domestic violence. It is almost exclusively in the Family Courts of Berkeley, Charleston and Dorchester counties."

Ms. Roache provided the following information regarding her experience in Family Court: "I have been involved in numerous actions with divorce and equitable distribution. I have filed and defended actions for divorce on all grounds. Many of these actions have also involved equitable distribution issues: real property,

Many cases that were accepted included child custody as the primary issue. The candidate sought to develop a case for the client based upon the best interests of the child. Work was done with Guardians ad litem, psychologists and other professionals.

I have handled many adoptions. Some of these actions also included the termination of parental rights. Several adoptions were prescribed by the Department of Social Services.

Abuse and neglect actions were a part of my practice. I was appointed to serve as attorney for defendants, Guardian ad Litem, attorney for the Guardian, mostly in Charleston and Berkeley counties. Several matters where I was appointed as Guardian or attorney for the Guardian lasted for years.

Several cases were handled on behalf of juveniles. Most often, a resolution of the matter was sought."
Ms. Roache reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   None

(b)   State:     Several times per month."
Ms. Roache reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     20%

(b)   Criminal:   5%

(c)   Domestic:   75%"
Ms. Roache reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     0%

(b)   Non-jury:   100%"
Ms. Roache provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Roache's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Price v. Price (Charleston County Family Court) was a matter that involved divorce and equitable distribution. It was significant because of the proof of the divorce and the parties had considerable assets and debts to be divided. A great deal of discovery was conducted to determine the assets, the debts and the values.

(b)   David v. David (Berkeley County Family Court) was a custody, divorce and equitable distribution action. I served as the

(c)   Cooper v. Brown (Charleston County Family Court) was a custody case that resulted in protracted litigation. Extensive discovery was conducted. This was significant as the trial of the matter lasted for more than 7 days and it provided excellent experience.

(d)   The Matter of Hattie Edwards (Social Security) sought to establish a common law marriage and entitlement to Social Security benefits. This was significant because I was able to use my knowledge of family law to successfully establish a common law marriage through testimony in the trial of the matter with the Administrative Law Judge and a brief submitted.

(e)   Clark Adoption (Charleston County) was an adoption that required that the parental rights of both natural parents be terminated. It was significant because of the issues involved and since it involved the best interests of that infant child."

Ms. Roach reported that she has not handled any civil appeals.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Roache's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Roache "to be a well-qualified and highly respected candidate. The committee recommends Ms. Roache's election to the position of Family Court Judge."
Ms. Roache is married to John Perry Buncum, Jr. She has no children.
Ms. Roache reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar;

(b)   National Bar Association;

(c)   S.C. Women Lawyers Association."
Ms. Roache provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   The Junior League of Charleston, Inc., Member at Large to Board of Directors; Volunteer of the Year;

(b)   Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., Reporter and Graduate Advisor, numerous service awards;

(c)   The Links, Inc., Journalist and Corresponding Secretary."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Scott meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service.
Judge Scott was born on August 21, 1949. He is 52 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Scott 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 Scott. The Commission found Judge Scott to be highly ethical.
Judge Scott 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 Scott reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Scott 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 Scott 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 Scott to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Scott described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   American Bar Association. Annual Law Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb. 14, 1996;

(b)   CLE, S.C. Civil Procedure Rules to Practice By USC, Sept. 28, 1996;

(c)   CLE, Dept. of Revenue, Rules of Conduct and Ethical Considerations for Public Officials and their Employees, Edisto Island, S.C., Nov. 21, 1997;

(d)   CLE, Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility, USC, Dec. 2, 1997;

(e)   CLE, The Masters in Trial, Dec. 12, 1997;

(f)   CLE, S.C. Circuit Court Arbitrator Certification Training, USC, Jun. 26, 1998;

(g)   CLE, Professionalism in Practice, USC, Nov. 20, 1998;

(h)   Administrative Law: Fair Hearing, Jun. 14, 1999;

(j)   Judicial and Administrative Review, Sept. 15, 1999;

(i)   3rd Annual Southern States Seminar, Mar. 17, 2000;

(k)   NAALJ Annual Conference 2000, Oct. 14, 2000;

(l)   Objections at Trial, Feb., 23, 2001."
Judge Scott reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "Business Law, Columbia Junior College, formerly known as Columbia Commercial College, 1975-1997; S.C. Bar Panel, 6-21-97, Electric Deregulation, American Bar Association Annual Law Conference, Feb. 14, 1996, Electric Deregulation."
Judge Scott reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Scott 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 Scott reported that he is listed but not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Scott reported the following information relative to military service: "United States Army Reserve, May 1971-1979, Captain, Honorable Discharge."

Judge Scott reported that he was elected by the General Assembly to serve as Commissioner of the Public Service Commission, July 1994 to June 1999.

The Commission noted that Judge Scott has a reputation of being an ethical and hard-working judge.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Scott appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Scott appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Scott was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974. He described his legal experience as follows:

"1974-1981     Leventis and Scott, et al., Real Estate;

1981-1985     Staff Attorney, Public Service Commission, Administrative Law (Utilities and Transportation);

1984-1986     Willoughby & Scott, Administrative Law;

1986-1987     Executive Assistant to Commissioners and General Counsel, Public Service Commission, Administrative Law;

1988-1994     Deputy Executive Director and Executive Assistant to Commissioners, Public Service Commission, Administrative Law;

1993-1999     Commissioner, Public Service Commission;

1999-Present   Administrative Law Judge."

Judge Scott provided the following information relative to judicial offices held and jurisdiction: "Administrative Law Judge, ALJD, elected by General Assembly, 1999-present. Has jurisdiction over contested cases as defined in Section 1-23-310 involving the departments of the executive branch of government in which a single hearing officer is authorized or permitted by law or regulation to hear and decide such cases, except those arising under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, those matters which are otherwise provided for in Title 56, or those other cases or hearings which are prescribed for or mandated by federal law or regulation, unless otherwise by law specifically assigned to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge Division. Has jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of contested cases before professional and occupational licensing boards or commissions within the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation pursuant to Section 1-23-380 and to review certain final decisions of various other boards or departments. Has jurisdiction over appeals of prison inmate grievances pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (S.C. 2000). Conducts public hearings involving the promulgation of regulations by a department for which the governing authority is a single director."

The Commission believes that Judge Scott's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Judge C. Dukes Scott to be a qualified and highly regarded judge. The committee positively approves of his re-election to the Administrative Law Judge Division, Seat 2."
Judge Scott is married to Judith S. Scott. He does not have any children.
Judge Scott reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   National Association of Administrative Law Judges."
Judge Scott provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Forest Lake Presbyterian Church Elder;

(b)   Brooklyn-Cayce High School Foundation Director."

Judge Scott additionally stated:

"Since 1981 my legal career has been virtually exclusively dedicated to the practice of administrative law. For four years I served in the legal Department of the Public Service Commission, representing the Commission and Commission Staff in many complex administrative issues under the Administrative Procedures Act. From January of 1985 to July 1986, I was in private practice of law where I spent the vast majority of my time litigating issues before the Public Service Commission of South Carolina, the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. From 1986 to 1994, I served in various roles at the Commission including General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, but always maintained my duties as Executive Assistant to Commissioners. As Executive Assistant to Commissioners I advised the presiding Commissioner on procedural matters raised during the course of a litigated proceeding. I also served as the Commissioners' chief attorney with responsibility for all matters affecting the commission.

From July 1994 to June 1999, I served as a Commissioner on the Public Service Commission. In this role I served as both a judge and juror. I made the prevailing motions in some of the most complicated cases, which have come before the Commission since 1994. These matters have included rate reductions to BellSouth, a rate case for

Since June 1999, I have served as an Administrative Law Judge litigating complex administrative contested cases and appeals.

In summary, my experiences over the last 20 years, have involved every aspect of litigating, appealing and deciding administrative law cases."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Spruill meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Spruill was born on May 31, 1944. He is 57 years old and a resident of Cheraw, South Carolina. Judge Spruill 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 Spruill.
Judge Spruill 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 Spruill reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Spruill 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 Spruill testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

The Commission found Judge Spruill to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Spruill described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: "I have attended mandatory JCLE and several further seminars. My JCLE hours have substantially exceeded the required minimum each year."
Judge Spruill reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "Lectured in Guardian Training Programs and the training programs for battered women volunteers and assisted in presenting the topic JUDICIAL ETHICS in new Judges School 2000 and 2001."
Judge Spruill reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   Survey of Articles I-VII of the proposed draft for a revised South Carolina Constitution 22 SCLR 50 (1970);

(b)   Automobile Insurance - Omnibus Exclusion 20 SCLR 855 (1968)."
(4)   Character:

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

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

The Commission did receive an affidavit regarding Judge Spruill's candidacy. After reviewing the material submitted by the Complainant and Judge Spruill and after hearing their testimony, the Commission determined that the allegations made in the affidavit were not relevant to Judge Spruill's qualifications to hold judicial office. While the Commission appreciated the Complainant's concerns regarding the family court system, no evidence was presented to find Judge Spruill in any way unqualified to hold his current position of family court judge.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Spruill reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Spruill provided the following information relative to his military service: "United States Naval Reserve, Active Duty, 1965-67; Active Reserve 1967-70; Lieutenant. At the end of my six years

Judge Spruill provided the following information regarding his legal experience since law school:

"Clerk to Honorable Robert W. Hemphill, U.S. District Judge, 1970-71;

Associate to Frank L. Taylor in the General Practice of Law in Richland County, 1971-73;

Partner in the firm of Griggs, Spruill and Harris in the General Practice of Law in Cheraw, South Carolina, January 1974 - June 1989;

Family Court Judge July 1, 1989 to Present."

Judge Spruill reported that he has held only the Family Court Judgeship since July 1989, having been elected by the Legislature May 2, 1989; he was re-elected in May 1990; and in May 1996.

The following is a list of Judge Spruill's most significant orders:

"(a)   Christy vs. Christy, Appeal Op #2207 - 452 S.E.2d 1;

(b)   Shake vs. Darlington County DSS; on appeal - 306 S.C. 216, 410 S.E.2d 923;

(c)   Caroline Graham vs. The Estate of Lonnie Graham, Sharon Graham, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lonnie Graham, and Katrina Council; Unpublished Opinion No. 2000-UP-584.

As far as I know the above cases are the only reported appeals in matters I have heard. Other orders would be of significance only to the parties. The three listed are representative.

(a)   Darwin vs. Darwin; 5-31-01;

(b)   Kochenower vs. Kochenower; 11-29-94"
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The committee is of the opinion that Judge Spruill is qualified for the position of family court judge. As a result of its investigation and interview with Judge Spruill, the committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Judge Spruill is married to Sarah Patrick Cain. He has two children: Sarah Patrick Spruill, age 25, and Eleanor Calder Spruill, age 23.
Judge Spruill reported that he was a member of the South Carolina Bar.
Judge Spruill provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   St. David's Episcopal Church;

(b)   St. David's Society;

(c)   UNC and USC Alumni Associations;

(d)   St. Andrews (Columbia);

(e)   American Legion;

(f)   Cheraw Country Club;

(g)   Governor's School for Math and Science Foundation;

(h)   Naval Reserve Association;

(i)   St. David's Cemetery Association;

(j)   Cheraw Arts Commission (Friends of);

(k)   Cheraw Library (Friends of);

(l)   Family Membership in numerous local and State organizations interested in historic preservations."

Judge Spruill additionally reported: "I have enjoyed my job and would like to retain it."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Stilwell meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service
Judge Stilwell was born on November 6, 1935, in Spartanburg, South Carolina. He is 66 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Stilwell 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 1961.

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Stilwell.
Judge Stilwell 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 Stilwell reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Stilwell 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 Stilwell 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 Stilwell to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Stilwell described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: "I have exceeded the amount of training required to comply with the requirements of continuing judicial education since I have been on the bench. I attended a one week conference for new appellate court judges at New York University School of Law July 5-10, 1998; I attended a judicial conference sponsored by the American Bar Association at Williamsburg, Virginia, April 18-22, 1999, and began the Graduate Program for Judges at the University of Virginia in 1999 but was unable to continue in 2000 due to an illness in the family. For more detailed information, please see the attached Annual Reports of Compliance."
Judge Stilwell reported "I have lectured at two Greenville County Bar Association sponsored CLE functions, to the best of my memory one in December 1997 and one in December 1998. The subject of those was issues of appealability and preservation of error in the trial court for purposes of appeal. Additionally, I have spoken to various groups on law-related matters, including a conference of county and municipal attorneys sponsored by the Association of Counties, the Trial Academy sponsored by the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Stilwell 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 Stilwell reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Stilwell reported that he has never served in the military.

Judge Stilwell further stated, "I was elected to the South Carolina State Senate in a special election in February 1987 and served continuously in that body until my resignation which was effective December 31, 1995."

The Commission noted that Judge Stilwell earned the highest reputation as a state senator and that he maintains an exemplary reputation as an appellate court judge.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Stilwell appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Stilwell appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Stilwell was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1961.

Judge Stilwell provided the following account of his legal experience:

"March 1961 through February 1963, Office of United States Senator Strom Thurmond;

March 1963 through approximately June 1963, sole practitioner, Greenville, South Carolina, in the general practice of law with no specialty.

June 1963 through December 1967, Staff Counsel Senate Commerce Committee and/or staff member in the office of U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond.

January 1968 through approximately March 1969, sole practitioner with general practice of law - no specialty.

March 1969 through 1971, associate with McDonald, Cox and Turner; general practice law firm.

1971 through approximately 1978, a partner with the firm of McDonald, Cox and Stilwell;

1978 through 1981, sole practitioner;

1981 through approximately 1992, a partner in a firm which began as Ashmore, Stilwell & Hunter, and thereafter became Stilwell & Hunter; from 1992 until my election to the bench I practiced as a sole practitioner under the name of The Stilwell Law Firm and was joined in the last year by my son, Robin B. Stilwell, in that practice.

All dates are approximate and are as accurate as my memory will allow."

Judge Stilwell reports that he has held the following judicial positions:

"The South Carolina Court of Appeals, Seat 7. I was elected to a newly created seat on February 14, 1996, and qualified April 25, 1996, and have served continuously since. The jurisdiction of this court is general in both civil and criminal cases statewide, and the only limitations are those set forth in South Carolina Code Annotated Section 14-8-2000 (Supp. 1999). I have also sat by appointment as an acting associate justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court on several cases. The jurisdiction of this court is unlimited in appellate matters."

Judge Stilwell provided the following account of his five most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Poole v. Incentives Unlimited; affirmed after grant of certiorari by Supreme Court, Op. No. 25299 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed June 4, 2001) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 20 at 11);

(b)   Global Protection Corp. v. Halbersberg, cert. Denied;

(c)   Reiland v. Southland Equipment, cert. Dismissed;

(d)   Meyer v. Piggly Wiggly; affirmed by Supreme Court on cert. 338 S.C. 471, 527 S.E.2d 761 (2000); and

(e)   Dodge v. Dodge."

Judge Stilwell further provided: "I have had no outside employment while I have served as a judge. I was an unsuccessful candidate for the office of State Senator, District 6, in the general election held in November 1984, and I was an unsuccessful candidate for a seat on the

The Commission believes that Judge Stilwell's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Stilwell was found to be a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Stilwell is married to Robin Laverne Scarborough Stilwell. He has four children. Rivers S. Stilwell, born 12/28/64; Robin B. Stilwell, born 12/20/66; Jason D. Stilwell, born 11/21/71; and Allison E. Stilwell Russell; born 11/14/72.
Judge Stilwell reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar. I served as a member of the committee on continuing legal education for several years in the early 1980s, and was appointed to the local upstate division of the resolution of fee disputes board in the mid-1980s;

(b)   Greenville County Bar Association; I was secretary for several years in the late 1960s or early 1970s."
Judge Stilwell provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Mars Hill College Alumni Association;

(b)   University of South Carolina Alumni Association;

(c)   The Gamecock Club."

Judge Stilwell further provided, "I have four wonderful children, the older two of whom are practicing lawyers in Greenville, South Carolina, the younger two of which are successful business people in Greenville, South Carolina. I devoted quality time to these children in their formative years and take great pride in believing that that has somewhat contributed to their character, reputation, and success. While others may disagree, I believe that reflects positively upon my candidacy for this position."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

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

Ms. Swope was born on April 27, 1966. She is 35 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Ms. Swope 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 1991.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Swope.
Ms. Swope demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Swope reported that she has spent $131.20 for postage during this campaign.
Ms. Swope testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. Swope testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Ms. Swope to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Swope described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: "Completed continuing legal education requirements, often exceeding requirements, emphasizing on family court and criminal matters (juvenile defense)."
Ms. Swope reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"Charleston Southern University; Adjunct Instructor; 1994-Present; Courses taught include:

Business Ethics: Discussion and evaluation of various case studies involving issues of business ethics;

Business Law I: Overview of American Justice System, civil and criminal;

Business Law II: Continuation of Business Law I with emphasis on commercial paper and the U.C.C.;

Juvenile Justice: Overview of the juvenile justice system and the history and development of same;

Labor Law: Overview of labor law and related management principles;

Institute for Legal Education; Instructor; 1993-1994; Taught an intensive, fast paced paralegal studies course through the University of South Carolina, Continuing Education Division."
Ms. Swope reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Swope was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Ms. Swope reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. Swope appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Ms. Swope appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Swope was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.

She provided the following information relative to her legal experience:

"Ninth Circuit Solicitor's Office, Charleston County; Assistant Solicitor; 1991-1992; Primary responsibility for juvenile prosecutions, including summary proceedings, trials, and waiver hearings to transfer jurisdiction of cases to general sessions. Also assisted with Department

Institute for Legal Education; Instructor; 1993-1994; Taught an intensive, fast paced paralegal studies course through the University of South Carolina, Continuing Education Division.

Law Office of Denise Grainger Swope; 1992-1999; General practice with emphasis on family law and criminal law, including but not limited to divorce, separation, equitable division, custody, support, D.S.S. cases (both as Guardian Ad Litem and in the capacity of attorney for GAL or defendants), adoption (both as Guardian Ad Litem and in the capacity of attorney for parties) and juvenile defense.

Swope and Brown, P.A., Managing Partner; 1999-2000; General practice;

Charleston Southern University; Adjunct Instructor; 1994-Present;

Swope Law Firm, P.A.; 2001-Present; General practice;

Ms. Swope further provided regarding her experience in Family Court matters: "In private practice, I have handled numerous divorce and separation cases, involving equitable division, custody, child support, and alimony. I have represented both adoptive and biological parents in adoption cases, as well as served as Guardian Ad Litem. I have been a volunteer for the Guardian Ad Litem Program and have completed their certification program. I am also a certified family court mediator. I was formerly an Assistant Solicitor for Charleston County and my primary responsibility was juvenile prosecutions. At the time, the prosecution of D.S.S. abuse and neglect cases was a duty of the Solicitor's office and I assisted with the prosecution of those cases as needed. Finally, I have served as defense attorney in my juvenile cases in private practice. My varied experience in all aspects of family court will serve me well if I have the privilege to serve on the family court bench."
Ms. Swope reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   federal: approximately 5 total appearances

(b)   state: approximately 2-3 per week"
Ms. Swope 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:   30%

(c)   domestic:   60%"

"(a)   jury:     10%

(b)   non-jury:   90%"
Ms. Swope provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Swope's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   In the Interests of John Doe, a minor: My first major trial as a juvenile prosecutor was this waiver proceeding seeking to transfer jurisdiction to general sessions to allow the juvenile to be tried as an adult. I was successful in this endeavor and the case was transferred to adult court. I was informed that it was the first waiver proceeding in Charleston in approximately two years. The case involved a sixteen-year-old male involved in the shooting of a pizza delivery man. There were allegations in the case indicating that after the victim was shot, the perpetrators joked about the shooting while eating the pizza. The case involved months of legal preparation, review of a psychological and a waiver evaluation, preparation of expert witnesses, and a hotly contested hearing attracting great media attention. I feel I learned a great deal about being a trial lawyer, but what affected me more were the social issues. I realized then that the cases in family court are of paramount importance to not only the families directly affected, but to society as a whole. Our youth are the future of our society. As such, I take very seriously, the duty of family court to act in the best interest of the child, whether that is protecting the child and/or society or attempting to guide the child toward the path of growing into a productive adult.

(b)   In the Interest of John Doe, et al., minors: This case involved the beating death of a young white male allegedly perpetrated by a group of black youths and one black adult male. The youngest defendant was only fourteen years of age. This case, due to its brutality and the obvious racial issues, attracted intense media attention, and ultimately the press was allowed into the courtroom to report the progress of the case. This case culminated in the successful waiver of all the juvenile co-defendants to general sessions to face the charge of murder and other related charges. The trial preparation was extensive, once again involving months of work, review psychological evaluations and waiver evaluations on all the juvenile defendants, review of the coroner's report and conferring with law enforcement officials while dealing with the press. This case was extremely significant to my growth as an attorney and taught me more than perhaps any other in my

(c)   In the interest of John Doe, a minor: This case involved a deaf boy under the age of twelve. When I was juvenile prosecutor, a Department of Juvenile Justice caseworker came to me with the story of this young boy. He had previously been involved in a D.S.S. case when he was allegedly sexually abused by his father but the abuse could not be proven. Testimony was difficult due to the child's age and disability. The child had since developed a history of expressing his feelings and frustration by setting things on fire. For obvious safety reasons, the child had been hospitalized in a secure setting. However, the hospital had only a short period of time before they would be required to release him. Despite the many agencies with arguable jurisdiction, no one quite knew what to do with him, each claiming he was under the jurisdiction of a different agency. Although he was too young to be detained, I filed a delinquency petition hoping to place him on probation and perhaps obtain access to a greater pool of services. A Charleston County Family Court Judge came to the aid of this child by ordering that a representative from all involved agencies appear once a week until a suitable placement and treatment program could be established. Aside, from learning a great deal about the inner workings of a number of agencies and their services, I was privileged to be a part of making a real difference for this child.

(d)   In the Interests of John Doe, a minor: I was also the prosecutor on this case involving a young man with a history of theft to support a severe cocaine habit. The boy was well known to the system and many police officers knew him on sight. Despite his long history of recidivism and failure in treatment, with the assistance of the professions involved, and a caring Family Court Judge, a new intensive treatment plan was attempted. The boy successfully completed treatment and his counselor gave a positive recommendation to the Court. The boy held the door for me as I entered Court on the day his disposition (sentencing) was scheduled, thanking me for my help. He

(e)   Mitchell v. Mitchell: I was attorney for the Husband-Father in this case. The parties, whose relationship had resulted in two children, had never ceremonially wed. The Wife-Mother alleged common law marriage based upon my client's testimony during a deposition given in a civil case. The civil case was a suit against the hospital where the Wife-Mother had miscarried and the alleged mishandling of the child's remains. The case involved the varied and complex issues of the legal determination of a common law marriage, divorce, custody, child support, alimony, equitable division, perjury, and admissibility and appropriate usage of out of court-sworn statements. Not to mention the troublesome concept that, to use my client's words, he got 'accidentally married' at a deposition."

Ms. Swope stated: "I have not handled any domestic appeals."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Ms. Swope's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Lowcountry Citizens Committee finds Denise Grainger Swope to be a qualified and respected candidate. The Committee recommends Denise Grainger Swope's election to the position of Family Court Judge."
Ms. Swope is married to William Koatesworth Swope. She does not have any children.
Ms. Swope reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   S.C. Women Lawyers Association;

(c)   Charleston Art of Trial Advocacy Workshop;

(d)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association."
Ms. Swope provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Member; Rotary Club of John's Island;

(b)   Board Member; Charleston Ballet Company;

(c)   Volunteer Judge of the S.C. High School Mock Trial Competition;

(d)   Trident Safe Kids volunteer;

(e)   Republican Congressional Committee; Business Advisory Committee Member;

(f)   University of South Carolina; Dean's List (four times);

(g)   University of South Carolina; President's List;

(h)   University of South Carolina School of Law; Recruitment Scholarship recipient;

(i)   University of South Carolina School of Law; Anthony Raymond Scholarship for Outstanding Handicapped Law Student recipient;

(j)   Listed in Who's Who in American Professionals;

(k)   Member, Harbour Club, Charleston;

(l)   Member, Young Executive Committee, Harbour Club."

Ms. Swope further provided, "I believe the extensive application process addresses all needed information regarding my candidacy."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Justice Waller meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service

Justice Waller was born on October 31, 1937. He is 64 years old and a resident of Mullins, South Carolina. Justice Waller 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 1963.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Justice Waller.
Justice Waller 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.
Justice Waller reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Justice Waller 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.
Justice Waller 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 Justice Waller to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Justice Waller described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"1996
1/26/96   SCB Eleventh Annual Criminal Law Update, 6.25;
5/01/96   SCCOA Seminar for New Appellate Court Judges, 11.75;
8/08/96   SCTLA 1996 Annual Convention, 12.00;
8/22/96   SCCA Judicial Conference, 8.25;

1997
1/24/97   SCB 12th Annual Criminal Law Update, 6.50;
1/25/97   SCB Trial & Appellate Advocacy   , 3.00;

Mid-Year Meeting Section Seminar;
8/21/97   SCCA Judicial Conference, 8.00;

1998
1/23/98   13/th Annual Criminal Law Update, 6.50;
8/13/98   1998 Annual Convention, 14.50;
8/20/98   Judicial Conference, 8.25;

1999
1/22/99   14/th Annual Criminal Law Update, 7.00;
8/05/99   1999 Annual Convention, 12.00;
8/19/99   Judicial Conference, 7.25;

2000
2/18/00   SCB A Haven for Dissenters: S.C. In America, 6.00;
8/16/00   SCCA Annual Judicial Conference, 7.75;
8/03/00   SCTLA 2000 SCTLA Convention, 2.00;
1/21/00   SCB 15th Annual Criminal, 6.00."
Justice Waller reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "While a circuit judge, I taught at the new judges school, judicial ethics and participated in discussions mostly involving ethics."
Justice Waller reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Justice Waller did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made

The Commission also noted that Justice Waller 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:
Justice Waller reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. He further stated: "I have never tried to have myself listed - never figured I would need it while I was practicing and never had the occasion where it was needed or desired. Presently I am frequently requested to give my opinion as to how attorneys should be rated."

Justice Waller provided the following information regarding military service: "December 1959 - June 1960 Active Duty, Army (Armor); Discharged as Captain, Honorably discharged."

Justice Waller reported that he served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1967 until 1976, and in the South Carolina Senate from 1977 until 1980. He was elected to these offices.
(6)   Physical Health:
Justice Waller appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Justice Waller appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Justice Waller was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1963.

Justice Waller provided the following information relative to his legal experience: "Went immediately into private practice as a sole practitioner in 1963. Practiced alone until 1976. Thereafter took in an associate and practiced until 1980 when I was elected to the Circuit Bench. My practice consisted of all types of work (criminal, civil, domestic, property) with over 60% of it being in criminal and civil trial work."

Justice Waller was elected to the Circuit Bench in 1980 and served until 1994; he was elected to the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1994.

The following is an account of Justice Waller's significant orders:

"(a)   Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000)

(b)   Simmons v. Tuomey Regional Medical Center, 341 S.C. 32, 533 S.E.2d 312 (2000);

(c)   Osprey, Inc. v. Cabana Limited Partnership, 340 S.C. 367, 532 S.E.2d 269 (2000);

(d)   I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000);

(e)   State-Record Co., Inc. v. State, 332 S.C. 346, 504 S.E.2d 592 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1050, 119 S.Ct. 1355, 143 L.Ed.2d 517 (1999)."

Justice Waller stated that he was a candidate for the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1991. He withdrew after screening and before the election.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Justice Waller's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The committee is of the opinion that Justice Waller is qualified for the position of Associate Justice, Supreme Court of South Carolina. As a result of its investigation and interview with Justice Waller, the committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Justice Waller is married to Debra Meares Waller. He has four children. John Henry Waller, III, age 33; Melissa McLaurin Waller Spearman, age 30; Ryan Meares Waller, age 17; and Rand Ellis Waller, age 11.
Justice Waller reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Marion County Bar;

(c)   American Bar Association (formerly)."
Justice Waller provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Mason;

(b)   Shriners;

(c)   Wildlife Action;

(d)   Summit Club;

(e)   Macedonia United Methodist Church."

Justice Waller further provided: "I was a circuit judge for over ten years and feel that every circuit I have been in can attest to my judicial temperament, handling the court, working with the jury and any other area you wish to inquire.

I was the Chairman of the Circuit Court Advisory Committee which considered and advised the Supreme Court on matters requested by the

The following candidates were found qualified and are nominated:

Justice John H. Waller, Jr.     Supreme Court, Seat 4

Judge H. Samuel Stilwell     Court of Appeals, Seat 7

Leroy Ellis Davis     Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 7

J. Cordell Maddox, Jr.     Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 7

Michael F. Mullinax     Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 7

Judge Alison Renee Lee     Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 11

Judge James E. Brogdon, Jr.     Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 12

Judge John L. Breeden, Jr.     Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 13

Gordon B. Jenkinson   Family   Court for the 3rd Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Judge George M. McFaddin, Jr.     Family Court for the 3rd Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Judge James A. Spruill, III     Family Court for the 4th Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Judge Walter B. Brown, Jr.     Family Court for the 6th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Jocelyn B Cate     Family Court for the 9th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5

Ben F. Mack     Family Court for the 9th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5

Rita J. Roache,     Family Court for the 9th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5

W. Wallace Culp, III     Family Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Mary Alice H. Godfrey     Family Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Aphrodite K. Konduros     Family Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Judge Robert N. Jenkins, Sr.     Family Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 5

Judge Haskell T. Abbott, III     Family Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Judge C. Dukes Scott     Administrative Law Judge Division, Seat 2

Note: Senator Thomas L. Moore did not participate in the Commission's investigation, public hearing, deliberations, or voting concerning Judge Thomas P. Murphy.

At 11:07 A.M., on motion of Senator SETZLER, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 12:00 Noon.

This web page was last updated on Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 1:12 P.M.