Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

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

Date Draft Report Issued:   Thursday, May 6, 2004
Date and Time Final Report Issued:   12:00 noon on Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 12:00 noon.

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. 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 experiences (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for various organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.

The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; physical health; mental health; and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1)   survey of the bench and bar;
(2)   SLED and FBI investigation;
(3)   credit investigation;
(4)   grievance investigation;
(5)   study of application materials;
(6)   verification of ethics compliance;
(7)   search of newspaper articles;
(8)   conflict of interest investigation;
(9)   court schedule study;
(10)   study of appellate record;
(11)   court observation; and
(12)   investigation of complaints.

While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact on a candidate's fitness for judicial service.

The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.

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 were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the canons, etc. is his completed and sworn questionnaire.

Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision.

This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Armstrong meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Armstrong was born on August 12, 1956. He is 47 years old and a resident of Seabrook, South Carolina. Judge Armstrong provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Armstrong.
Judge Armstrong demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Armstrong reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Armstrong testified he has not:

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

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

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Armstrong testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Armstrong to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Armstrong described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Each year I have exceeded the required number of CLE hours by attending the Family Court Judges Conference; Family Law Midyear Meeting; Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar; Annual Judicial Conference; and the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention.

(b)   Upon election to the Family Court in 1998, I attended the Orientation School for New Family and Circuit Court Judges. Also, in 1998, I attended the Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes.

(c)   In addition, I completed a one-week course sponsored by the National Judicial College on current issues in family law. Last April I was one of 25 Judges selected to attend the National Judicial College to study remedies for international kidnapping pursuant to the Hague Convention.

(d)   I also attended a seminar on ethics and professionalism in 2002. The title of this seminar was, Enhancing the Accountability of Lawyers for Unprofessional Conduct."
Judge Armstrong reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   November 1998, Bench/Bar CLE. I gave a presentation on issues in juvenile crime.

(b)   October 1998, Annual Solicitor's Convention. My topic covered issues in juvenile crime.

(c)   October 2001, Annual Solicitor's Convention. I spoke on issues relating to competency.

(d)   December 2001, South Carolina Bar/CLE, in Columbia. I spoke on the Family Court cases that arose during the year in a seminar that focused on state case law and developments.

(e)   January 2003, GAL Certification Training. This seminar was a two-day training session for certification under the new GAL statute. I spoke on the second day on report writing, focusing on hearsay and the rules of evidence."
Judge Armstrong reported that he has published the following:
"'Up From the Lowcountry, Who is this New Kid on the Block?' Fall Issue, 1983, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Bulletin. This was an article on the Honorable William T. Howell after his election as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Armstrong did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Armstrong did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Armstrong has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Armstrong was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Armstrong reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Armstrong provided the following regarding prior public offices held:
"Assistant Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1985 - 1990;
Deputy Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, appointed 1990 - 1995."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Armstrong appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Armstrong appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Armstrong was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
Judge Armstrong provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Law Clerk, The Honorable William T. Howell, 1982 - 1983;
Public Defender for Allendale, Hampton, and Jasper Counties, 1983 - 1985;
Assistant Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, 1985 - 1990;
Deputy Solicitor, 14th Judicial Circuit, 1990 - 1995;
Private Practice, 1995 - 1998
Sole practitioner with primary emphasis on family, criminal, and personal injury cases."
Judge Armstrong reported that he was elected to the Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, on May 8, 1998, and has served continually since.
Judge Armstrong reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:
"(a)   state:     100%."
Judge Armstrong reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:
"(a)   civil:     15%;
(b)   criminal:   65%;
(c)   domestic:   20%."
Judge Armstrong reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:
"(a)   jury:     75%;
(b)   non-jury:   25%."
Judge Armstrong provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as sole counsel in all cases except for 10 death penalty cases that he prosecuted as co-counsel.
The following is Judge Armstrong's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Hughes v. Hughes, 95-DR-18-1522, 95-DR-18-1526. I represented the wife in a divorce action in Dorchester County. Issues involved adultery, physical cruelty, and custody.

(b)   Broxton v. Broxton, 95-DR-25-333. I represented the wife in a divorce action in Hampton County. She was granted a divorce on the ground of adultery.

(c)   Rivers v. Boyd, 96-CP-27-95. This was an action brought on behalf of the heirs of Mattie Rivers to quiet title to land in Jasper County.

(d)   State v. McConnell, 449 S.E.2d 778 (Ct. App. 1994). I was appointed special prosecutor in Dorchester County. The defendant was convicted of reckless homicide.

(e)   State v. Anderson, 91-GS-07-413, 91-GS-07-414. This case involved the prosecution of a defendant accused of sexually assaulting and kidnapping a deputy's wife. He was convicted."
The following is Judge Armstrong's account of a civil appeal he has personally handled:

"(a)   Jasper County Department of Social Services v. William Bostic and Jackie Bostic; In Re: Jack and Daniel Bostic, Juveniles under the age of seventeen; Ex Parte: Darrell Thomas Johnson, Jr.

I represented the Respondent, Jasper County DSS. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court in Memorandum Opinion, Number 92-MO-181, filed July 6, 1992."
Judge Armstrong provided the following list of significant orders:

"(a)   Beauchamp v. Beauchamp, 98-DR-32-693; 2000-UP-612. The issues in this case were custody, child support, attorney fees, GAL fees, and expert fees.

(b)   Bakala v. Bakala, 98-DR-07-687; 576 S.E.2d 156 (2003). The issues in this case were complicated by the fact that the defendant, Father, lives in the Czech Republic and chose not to attend the trial.

(c)   Brown v. Malloy, 99-DR-04-129, 546 S.E.2d 195 (Ct. App. 2001). The main issue in this case was notice to the biological father.

(d)   Arnal v. Arnal, 99-DR-07-1608. The issues were visitation, child support, equitable division, attorney and GAL fees.

(e)   Kaiser v. Kaiser, 01-DR-07-770. The main issue in this case was custody."
Judge Armstrong reported that he ran unsuccessfully for At-Large Seats in the Circuit Court in February 1994, February 1996, and May 1996.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Armstrong's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Armstrong was a well-qualified and highly-respected Family Court judge. The committee wholeheartedly approved of his candidacy for the Court of Appeals.
Judge Armstrong is not married. He has two stepchildren from a previous marriage.
Judge Armstrong reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Beaufort County Bar."
Judge Armstrong provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Member, Advisory Board, Hilton Head High School, Law and Justice Academy;

(b)   Member, The University Club; Former Member, Hampton County Country Club (the club went out of business)."
Judge Armstrong provided the following additional information:

"(a)   Member, The Chief Justice's Commission on the Profession;

(b)   Appointed by the Chief Justice to help implement Rule 608, SCACR in the 14th Judicial Circuit;

(c)   Past Regional Vice President, South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;
I believe that my varied legal experience as a circuit court judge's law clerk, public defender, prosecutor, and sole practitioner have given me a solid foundation for the Bench. I have called upon this experience daily to make decisions that have a profound effect on peoples' lives in my nearly six years on the Family Court.
I have been honored to serve on the Chief Justice's Commission on the Profession. In that capacity, I was selected as a member of the sub-committee to draft a Judge's Oath. I am currently on a sub-committee to develop an intern program for law students to learn from sitting judges.
I believe that this experience gives me the ability to make a positive contribution to the Court of Appeals."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission noted Judge Armstrong's professionalism and caring manner in the courtroom as well as his diverse legal experience. They found Judge Armstrong very personable. The Commission found Judge Robert S. Armstrong qualified for service on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Buchan meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Buchan was born on September 26, 1952. She is 51 years old and a resident of Marion, South Carolina. Judge Buchan provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Buchan.
Judge Buchan demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Buchan reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Buchan testified she has not:

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

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

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Buchan testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Buchan to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Buchan described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Various seminars offered through S.C. Bar CLE Division;

(b)   Scientific Evidence, University of Nevada at Reno, October 2000."
Judge Buchan reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, Computers in the Courtroom, 1993;

(b)   Speaker, Horry County Bar Family Court Annual Seminar, 1993;

(c)   Judge, various state and one national High School Mock Trial competitions;

(d)   Speaker and co-panelist, various state and local Guardian ad Litem seminars;

(e)   Bridge the Gap, 1996, Handling Family Court Appointments;

(f)   Chief Judges Seminar, 1997, Scheduling Problems and Conflicts;

(g)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1998, Race and Gender Sensitive Issues;

(h)   SCTLA Annual Convention, co-panelist, 1998, Valuation of a Professional Practice;

(i)   South Carolina Bar Winter Meeting, 1998, co-panelist, Joint Custody Considerations;

(j)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1999, Post-Trial Motions in Juvenile Hearings;

(k)   Children's Law Office, CLE, 2000, Handling Court Appointments in Family Court;

(l)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 2000, general facilitator;

(m)   Tips From the Bench, III, CLE, 2002, Ethics in Family Court;

(n)   2004 Guardian ad Litem Training, CLE, 3/05/04: Role of the Guardian at Trial."
Judge Buchan reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Buchan has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Buchan was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Buchan reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Buchan reported: "If service on my county Department of Social Services Board of Directors is considered public office, I was appointed and served from February 1982 until July 1987."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Buchan appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Buchan appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Buchan was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.
Judge Buchan provided the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"For a brief period after my graduation from law school, I continued to clerk for the Columbia law firm of Kennedy, Price, Kosko & Coffas. From my admission to the bar until March 1982, I worked for Timothy G. Quinn in his Columbia office and managed his Marion office in a general practice. In March 1982, Edward W. Whittington, Jr. and I formed Whittington & Buchan, Attorneys, which was a general practice. Although I dealt primarily with domestic matters, I also handled civil, criminal, real estate, commercial, and probate matters."
Judge Buchan reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   two civil cases;

(b)   state:     remaining cases."
Judge Buchan reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     14%;

(b)   criminal:   1%;

(c)   domestic:   85%."
Judge Buchan reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     less than one-half of a percentage point;

(b)   non-jury:   remainder."
Judge Buchan provided that prior to election to the bench she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Buchan's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 377 S.E.2d 114 (Ct. App. 1989): This case was handled from initial filing through an appellate remand and subsequent appeal. The issues included a novel issue regarding common-law marriage as well as circumstantial proof necessary for a fault-ground divorce and alimony.

(b)   Marion County DSS v. Rowell. I was appointed counsel for a mother of limited intelligence in this termination of parental rights action. The case was significant for me because the request for termination was denied and the mother received substantial assistance from DSS to improve her living skills.

(c)   Turner v. Turner. This case is significant because my client had suffered from residual difficulties and disabilities from a closed-head injury.

(d)   Riad v. Diamond. I was appointed as the Guardian ad Litem for three children by a judge in a neighboring county. This case was significant and difficult because custody was contested by extended family members after the children's mother was killed by the children's father, who was thereafter incarcerated.

(e)   Rabon v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, et al. This was a wrongful death action involving the parent of a young child who was killed when his dirt bike hit a guy wire."
The following is Judge Buchan's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 87-MO-08 (Ct. App. filed January 28, 1987);

(b)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 277 S.E.2d 114 (Ct.App. 1989)."
Judge Buchan reported the following regarding prior judicial positions held:
"I was appointed and shortly thereafter elected as Family Court Judge, Seat 1, Twelfth Judicial Circuit in May, 1992; I have held that position since. Family Courts are of limited jurisdiction and handle matters of divorce, separate support and maintenance, support and property issues incidental to the marriage relationship, child custody and visitation, child support, paternity, adoptions, abuse and neglect of children and vulnerable adults, juveniles, minor abortions, name changes and domestic violence."
Judge Buchan provided the following list of her significant orders:

"(a)   Poston v. Poston, 331 S.C. 106, 502 S.E.2d 86 (1998);

(b)   Dixon v. Dixon, 336 S.C. 260, 519 S.E.2d 357 (Ct.App. 1999);

(c)   Eisenmann v. Eisenmann. This case remains one of my most significant because it remains the most tragic I have heard. Two professionals, who were both such wonderful individuals, were involved in a contested divorce and custody action after one of them was involved in a horrible automobile accident which left that party with significant residual difficulties. Family members became involved after a series of miscommunications, and the divorce action resulted. Both of the parties and their children suffered immeasurably.

(d)   Jane Doe and John Doe v. SCDSS, et al. Because this was an adoption case, fictitious names are substituted for the Plaintiffs. The case is significant because the child being adopted had been the subject of numerous abuse and neglect hearings I was involved with. The child suffered such several physical disabilities and developmental delays that medical experts opined that she would not survive to see her first birthday. The love, faith and goodness of the Plaintiffs had truly miraculously transformed the child and the child's prognosis. This matter is significant because it was one of the few cases with a happy ending that I have had.

(e)   Holloran v. Holloran, 98-UP-533, filed November 30, 1998. This case is significant because Mr. Holloran continues to be very unhappy with the result."
Regarding prior unsuccessful candidacies, Judge Buchan reported:
"In my candidacy for the Court of Appeals, Seat 3 in 1999, I was found qualified but was not nominated. In 2000, I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat 6. Again, I was found qualified but was not nominated. As a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat 3 in 2003, I was found qualified and was nominated. I withdrew prior to the election because of my husband's medical difficulties."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Buchan's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Buchan "is qualified for election to the position of Judge of the Court of Appeals. As a result of its current investigation and previous interview with Judge Buchan, the Committee recommends this candidate without reservation."
Judge Buchan is married to Ernest McCray Graham, Jr. She has three children.
Judge Buchan reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

(c)   SCWLA;

(d)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges."
Judge Buchan provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Marion Presbyterian Church: former deacon and elder; Sunday school teacher; Endowment Committee;

(b)   Pee Dee Academy Parent-Teacher Association;

(c)   Friends of the Marion County Museum."
Judge Buchan further provided: "I have both the ability and the desire to perform as an appellate judge. I have a background in English and literature. The requisite reading would be a joy, as would dealing with all areas of the law. I am logical and blessed with common sense. I consider myself to be a team player. My contact with juries has been non-existent for the past twelve years, but I believe independent study would solve this issue."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission was very favorably impressed with Judge Buchan's gracious demeanor, judicial temperament, and impressive legal knowledge. They noted that she enjoys wide respect within the legal community. The Commission found Judge Mary E. Buchan qualified and nominated her for election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lee meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Lee was born on September 17, 1958. She is 45 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. Judge Lee was also licensed to practice law in Texas in 1982 and in Louisiana in 1983.
(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.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Lee to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Lee described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   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);
(b)   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);
(c)   2001 - carried over credits from 2000;

Annual Criminal law Update (6.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (7.5);

S.C. Judicial Conference (8.25);
(d)   2002 - carried over credits from 2001;

Annual Criminal Law Update (6.0);

S.C. Women Lawyers CLE (6.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (7.75);

S.C. Judicial Conference (8.0);
(e)   2003 - carried over credits from 2002;

Annual Criminal Law Update (3.0);

Civil Law Update (3.0);

Legal Jeopardy - John Belton O'Neill Inn of Court (1.0);

Class Actions - John Belton O'Neill Inn of Court (1.0);

Women Lawyers in the New Millenium (4.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (7.25);

S.C. Judicial Conference (7.5)."
Judge Lee reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   JCLE - Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (August 1985)

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

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

Topic: Practice Tips for the Administrative Law Judge Division;
(e)   1996 That Was the Year That Was (January 1997)

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

Topic: Rules of the Administrative Law Judge Division;
(g)   South Carolina Woman Advocate: Moving into the Millennium (May 1998);
(h)   Tips from the Bench: Circuit Court Motions/Appeals (February 2000);
(i)     Tips from the Bench III: Lawyer Conduct/Ethics--Civil Cases (December 2002);
(j)     South Carolina Women Lawyer's CLE--Effective Use of Exhibits at Trial (April 2003)."
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 was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell to her knowledge; that she was listed as an associate with the McNair Law Firm 1985-1989.
(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 gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1982-83: Law Clerk, Honorable Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals;
1983-84: Law Clerk, Honorable C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., South Carolina Court of Appeals;
1984-89: Associate, McNair Law Firm, P.A., primarily litigation in contract or consumer-related issues. Last two years practiced labor and employment-related litigation;
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;
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;
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."
Judge Lee reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   90% of the cases I handled in private practice were in federal court (1984-89);

(b)   state:     10% of the cases I handled in private practice were in state court (1984-89)."
Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     (1984-89) 80%;

(b)   criminal:   (1984-89) 20%;
(c)   domestic:   handled 2-3 court appointed cases between 1984-89."
Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:
"(a)   jury:   (1984-89) 10% a majority of cases were resolved on motions or through settlement.
(b)   non-jury:
Judge Lee provided that prior to election to the bench she most often served as associate counsel on cases that were actually tried.
The following is Judge Lee's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Atkinson v. Citicorp Acceptance Co. (Federal district court). Case decided on summary judgment motion involving the Fair Debt Collection Act, then a new federal statute;

(b)   McClain v. Westinghouse (Federal district court). Employment law case involving sex discrimination, sex harassment, equal pay, as well as other employment claims. Case decided on summary judgment;

(c)   State of South Carolina v. Norris Stroman (state criminal case). Defendant (with limited intelligence) charged with murder and allegedly confessed. Jury acquitted;

(d)   Valerie Smith v. Kroger (Federal district court). Either a slander or malicious prosecution case resulting from shoplifting."
The following is Judge Lee's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Purdie v. Smalls, 293 S.C. 216, 359 S.E.2d 306 (Ct. App. 1987);

(b)   Hooten v. Carolina Treatment Center, Inc., 200 S.C. 37, 386 S.E.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1989) was not the lead attorney;

(c)   Condon v. Best View Cablevision, Inc., 292 S.C. 117, 355 S.E.2d 7 (Ct. App. 1987) was not the lead attorney;

(d)   Davis v. U.S. Steel Corp., 779 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1985) on brief."
Judge Lee reported the following regarding criminal appeals: "I did not handle any criminal appeals while in private practice. However, as a circuit court judge I have presided over appeals from magistrate and municipal court cases involving criminal matters."
Judge Lee reported the following regarding prior judicial offices held:
"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. Re-elected in February 2002. 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 provided the following list of significant orders or opinions:

"(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, conversion, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair trade practices. Each legal theory was considered and dismissed.

(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)   Kenneth Curtis v. State of South Carolina (Greenville County). Mr. Curtis sought to enjoin the state from enforcing a statute prohibiting the sale of urine in interstate commerce and to declare the statute unconstitutional."

Judge Lee reported the following regarding 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.
Candidate for Court of Appeals, Seat 6 (formerly held by Judge Cureton) and Court of Appeals, Seat 3 (formerly held by Judge Shuler). Elections took place in 2003. In both cases, I was found qualified by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission but I was not nominated."
(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 that Judge Lee was a qualified and highly-regarded judge who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children.
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, educational, 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, 2001-2003, 2003-present;

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

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

(e)   Honored by the S.C. Chapter of the National Association of Bench and Bar Spouses in April 1999;

(f)     Leadership South Carolina, Class of 1999."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission was favorably impressed with Judge Lee's valuable service on the bench as an Administrative Law Judge and then as a Circuit Court Judge. They noted her patient demeanor and professionalism. The Commission found Judge Alison Renee Lee qualified for service on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Manning meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Manning was born on December 7, 1950. He is 53 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Manning 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 Manning.
Judge Manning 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 Manning reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Manning 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 Manning 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 Manning to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Manning described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   01-22-99, 14th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(b)   05-12-99, Circuit Judges Conference;

(c)   06-28-99, Circuit Judges Orientation School;

(d)   08-19-99, Judicial Conference;

(e)   01-21-00, 15th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(f)   05-10-00, Circuit Judges Conference;

(g)   08-03-00, 2000 SCTLA Convention;

(h)   08-16-00, Annual Judicial Conference;

(i)     01-26-01, 16th Criminal Law Update;

(j)     05-09-01, Circuit Judges Conference;

(k)   07-02-01, 2001 Orientation School for New Judges;

(l)     08-23-01, Annual Judicial Conference;

(m)   01-25-02, 17th Criminal Law Update;

(n)   05-08-02, Annual Judicial Conference;

(o)   07-08-02, Circuit Judges Conference;

(p)   08-01-02, 2002 SCTLA Convention;

(q)   08-22-02, Annual Judicial Conference;

(r)   11-08-02, Annual 12th Criminal Practice in S.C.;

(s)   01-24-03, Civil Law Update;

(t)     01-24-03, 18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

(u)   05-07-03, Circuit Judges Conference;

(v)   08-07-03, 2003 SCTLA Convention;

(w)   08-21-03, Annual Judicial Conference;

(x)   11-21-03, 13th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C."
Judge Manning reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"Group Facilitator in General Jurisdiction Course, Reno, N.V.;
09-13-98   Group Facilitator in Essential Skills Course, Reno, N.V.;
1998       Presiding Judge for Judge Court;
1998-2003   Annual participant at S.C. Judicial Conferences (Civil       Junkyard and new developments);
12-12-03     S.C. Association of Counties CLE."
Judge Manning reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Manning did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Manning did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Manning has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Manning 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 Manning reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Manning reported that he has held the following public offices:
"S.C. Assistant Attorney General, Appointed 1983-1990;
Bar Examiner, Appointed 1992."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Manning appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Manning appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Manning was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Judge Manning gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1979-1983   Attorney and Counselor at Law, Dillon County, private practice;
1980   Part-time Instructor, Florence-Darlington Technical College;
1983-1989   S.C. Assistant Attorney General;
1988-1989   Chief of Prosecutions;
1989-1994   Partner, Walker, Morgan & Manning

Lexington, S.C.
1994-Present   Circuit Court judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit."
Judge Manning reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   3%;

(b)   state:     97%."
Judge Manning reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     40%;

(b)   criminal:   50%;

(c)   domestic:   10%."
Judge Manning reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     20%;

(b)   non-jury:   80%."
Judge Manning provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as sole counsel.
Judge Manning reported that he has been employed from 1993 to the present by Gamecock Sports Properties and Master Talent Fee Agreement (formerly Host Communications) as Color Analyst for the University of S.C. Basketball Team.
Judge Manning was elected Circuit Court judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in February 1994. He provided the following list of significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   State v. Tamika Grooms, 343 S.C. 248,540 S.E.2d 99. Verbal Order from the bench regarding the burden of proof by which a defendant must establish a 'credible history of criminal domestic violence' in order to obtain earlier parole eligibility date provided by Section 16-25-90 (Supp 1999);

(b)   Kathy Gibson v. Spartanburg School District #3. Court of Appeals Opinion No. 3102;

(c)   State v. William Ernest Downs, Jr., (Death Penalty Sentencing Order);

(d)   City of Columbia v. Pic-A-Flick Video, Inc., Supreme Court Opinion No. 25113;

(e)   State v. Cutro. Routine. (Bail Order)."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Manning's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Ms. Eunice McAllister submitted an affidavit and testified before the Commission regarding Judge Manning. She alleged that Judge Manning improperly allowed the South Carolina Department of Corrections ('SCDOC') to draft an Order for Judge Manning to sign without allowing a prisoner she represented as a 'Guardian ad Litem' (GAL) to respond. She also alleged that Judge Manning failed to provide to her information regarding her duties and responsibilities as a GAL. Judge Manning responded that the Order in the case was merely a simple procedural matter that did not require review. He further explained that judges often allow a party to draft an Order for him to sign subject, of course, to his final approval. Judge Manning also explained that his staff made several attempts to provide Eunice McAllister with GAL information; however, she failed to cooperate. The Commission found no evidence of misconduct by Judge Manning.
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Manning was a qualified and well-respected judge who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Manning is not married. He has three children by a former marriage.
Judge Manning reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar Association, 1977-Present;

(b)   S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Secretary (Chairman 1987-1988);

(c)   American Bar Association;

(d)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Assn., National Minority Delegate;

(e)   Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Sports Committee, 1973-74;

(f)   Richland County Bar Association;

(g)   S.C. Bar Board of Law Examiners, 1992;

(h)   S.C. Bar Special Committee on the Judiciary, 1991-1992;

(i)   S.C. Bar Commission on Judicial Conduct;

(j)   S.C. Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 1996-Present;

(k)   Hearing Masters, Rules on Judicial Discipline & Standards, 1994-1998;

(l)   United States Court of Appeals;

United States District Court, District of South Carolina."
Judge Manning provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   S.C. Athletic Hall of Fame, 1989-Present;

(b)   Columbia Tip-Off Club, 1989-Present; President 1991-1992;

(c)   USC Bi-Centennial Committee, 1998-2001;

(d)   Children's Justice Force Committee;

(e)   Citizens Summit Steering Committee;

(f)   Richland County Bar Civility Award 2002."
Summary of Commission's Findings:

The Commission noted Judge Manning's fairness in the courtroom to litigants and attorneys. They also commented on his solid knowledge of the law. The Commission found Judge L. Casey Manning qualified and nominated him for election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Matthews meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Matthews was born on November 8, 1950. She is 53 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Matthews provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Matthews.
Judge Matthews 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 Matthews reported that she has made $87.00 in campaign expenditures for postage and stationery.
Judge Matthews 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 Matthews testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Matthews to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Matthews described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2003:

(a)   10/21/03   Class Actions;

(b)   09/26/03   S.C. Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Conference;

(c)   09/23/03   Civility and Professionalism;

(d)   09/16/03-09/17/03   Central Panel Conference;

(e)   05/02/03   The Certificate of Need Case;

(f)   01/23/03   S.C. Bar Convention: Trial and Appellate Advocacy.
2002:

(a)   11/19/02   Discovery and Sanctions;

(b)   11/01/02   Ethics;

(c)   10/29/02   Sealing of Court Records;

(d)   09/20/02   S.C. Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Conference;

(e)   01/24/02   S.C. Bar Convention Spotlight on Technology in the Courtroom.
2001:

(a)   11/07/01   Ethics;

(b)   09/21/01   South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Conference;

(c)   04/19/01   Supreme Court Historical Society Colloquium History of Women at the Bar;

(d)   01/22-

01/23/01   S.C. Bar Convention: Trial and Appellate Advocacy.
2000:

(a)   10/15-   10/17/00   National Association of Administrative Law Judges Seminar, Albany, NY;

(b)   05/12/00   Symposium on the Environmental Regulatory Process, Charleston, S.C.;

(c)   04/14/00   S.C. Women's Law Association Seminar;

(d)   03/17/00   Southern States Annual Administrative Law Seminar.
1999:

(a)   10/25-

10/29/99   National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada: Advanced Evidence;

(b)   09/12-9/14/99   National Association of Administrative Law Judges Annual Conference;

(c)   04/09/99   Women Lawyer Advocates: SCWLA Seminar."
Judge Matthews reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"2004:

(a)   03/09/04   Bridge the Gap, 'The Eight Commandments of Administrative Law Practice.'
2003:

(a)   12/12/03   Tips from the Bench IV, 'Administrative Law;'

(b)   11/14/03   Ethics for State Government Attorneys, 'Professionalism in Administrative Law Practice;'

(c)   08/07/03   'The Lighter Side of the Law,' Presentation to SCWLA Meeting;

(d)   05/12/03   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law;'

(e)   03/26/03   Panel Discussion for USC Law School Students, 'How Judges Perceive Lawyers;'

(f)   03/08/03   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law,'
2002:

(a)   12/13/02   Tips from the Bench III, 'Administrative Law;'

(b)   09/12/02   Presentation to S.C. County Auditors and Assessors, 'Ethics and Professionalism: Eight Commandments of Administrative Law;'

(c)   05/14/02   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law;'

(d)   03/10/02   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law.'
2001:

(a)   12/12/01   Tips from the Bench II, 'Eight Commandments of Administrative Law;'

(b)   05/22/01   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law;'

(c)   03/11/01   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law.'
2000:

(a)   5/23/00   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law;'

(b)   5/12/00   Symposium on the Environmental Regulatory Process: 'Interpreting Regulations: What is Reasonable?'

(c)   4/14/00   S.C. Women Lawyers Association Seminar, 'Judicial Independence;'

(d)   3/8/2000   Bridge the Gap, 'Administrative Law.'
1994:

(a)   6/3/1994   '1994 Legislative Update' for Natural Resources Section of the S.C. Bar.
1993:

(a)   9/1993   'South Carolina State Government Restructured--the Private Sector Impact.'
1986:     'Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel' to Attorneys General of S.C.
1982:     Presentation to S.C. Circuit Judges on Appellate Practice."
Judge Matthews reported that she has published the following:
"Editor, S.C. Bar Natural Resources Newsletter, 1992-1994; South Carolina Business Journal, 'Busy Year for Environmental Issues,' S.C. Chamber of Commerce, July 1994; Legislative Year in Review, S.C. Bar Annual Conference June 1994; Legislative Review, S.C. Bar Annual Conference, June 1993; 'South Carolina State Government Restructured-The Private Sector Impact,' September 1993."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Matthews did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Matthews did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Matthews has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Matthews 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 Matthews reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Matthews appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Matthews appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Matthews was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
Judge Matthews provided the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Staff Attorney, South Carolina Supreme Court (1978-1981)

Reviewed and researched civil and criminal appeals; Recommended disposition by Court; supervised junior Staff Attorneys; Assisted at settlement conferences; Drafted Court Rules.
Law Clerk, South Carolina Supreme Court Justice George T. Gregory, Jr. (1981-1982)

Reviewed and researched civil and criminal appeals and motions; Drafted opinions, rules, and Orders for Justice Gregory; Assisted at hearings on Extraordinary Writs such as Mandamus, Supersedeas, and Attorney Disciplinary proceedings.
Assistant Attorney General, State of South Carolina (1982-1986)

Researched and wrote more than 200 appellate briefs and argued more than 80 appeals before S.C. Supreme Court, S.C. Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court; Coordinated appeals with Solicitors; Prosecuted Medical Board and other licensing board cases. Wrote opinions as directed by the Attorney General; Represented State Agencies; Coordinated Continuing Legal Education Seminars; Chaired first Law Enforcement Leadership Conference.
Counsel, South Carolina House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, David H. Wilkins, Chairman (1986-1988)

Managed research and drafting of Legislation and amendments for all Legislation referred to Judiciary Committee. Coordinated legislative efforts with Governor's Office, Legislative staff, and state agencies. Supervised staff attorneys and law clerks.
Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough (1988-1996)

Administrative practice before State agencies such as DHEC, Department of Insurance, and Public Service Commission; Governmental Relations; Appellate practice.
Partner, Woodward Cothran & Herndon (1996-1998)

Commercial Litigation; Appellate and Administrative Law practice before state agencies, including DHEC, Insurance Commission, and PSC. State and Federal Governmental Relations.
Carolyn C. Matthews, Attorney and Counselor at Law (December 1998-May, 1999)

Administrative and Appellate Law Practice; State and Federal Governmental Relations.
Administrative Law Judge, Seat #3 (June 2, 1999-present; reelected February 9, 2000)

Appeals from 49 Licensing Boards of LLR and DSS, HHS, DOC; Contested Cases from 11 State Agencies, including: DHEC, DOR, DNR, Department of Insurance, DHHS, DOT, DSS, OCRM, SLED, County Auditors and Assessors;

Regulatory Hearings from State agencies governed by a single director; Injunctions, Petitions for Stay, and other procedural Motions."
Judge Matthews reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   6-8 times per year;

(b)   state:     6-8 times per year."
Judge Matthews reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     90%;

(b)   criminal:   10%;

(c)   domestic:   0%."
Judge Matthews reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     5%;

(b)   non-jury:   95%."
Judge Matthews provided that prior to election to the bench she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Matthews' account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Donald Henry 'Pee Wee' Gaskins, 284 S.C. 105, 326 S.E.2d 132 (1985): Sole Counsel representing State of South Carolina in Death Penalty Appeal to S.C. Supreme Court. The case involved a 10,000 page transcript, more than 200 pages of briefs, on 19 issues, including: (1) the scope of the 4th Amendment's prohibition on unlawful searches and seizures in a jail cell; and (2) whether the admission into evidence at the sentencing phase of Gaskins' confession to 7 prior murders forced him to testify against himself.

In favorem vitae [in favor of life] review required that I be prepared at oral argument not only on the briefed issues, but also to address any other issues which might be raised by the Supreme Court during argument, of which there were several. "Pee Wee" Gaskins was the most notorious serial killer in South Carolina history. [His seven prior death sentences had been commuted when South Carolina's death penalty statute was declared unconstitutional.] The South Carolina and U.S. Supreme Courts upheld his conviction and death sentence.

(b)   Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority v. Water Resources Commission (1989): Sole Attorney in obtaining first Interbasin Transfer Permit from the S.C. Water Resources Commission. This new permit was required in order for Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority to transfer more than one million gallons of water per day from the Waccamaw Basin to the Little Pee Dee Basin.

The permit was critical to the continued operation of one of the largest water systems in the state, which provides water and sewer service to more than 200,000 people in Horry County, the City of Myrtle Beach, North Myrtle Beach, Aynor, and upper Georgetown County. It was also a significant step toward increased usage of surface water rather than groundwater.

(c)   Alexander S. v. Boyd, et al., U.S.D.C, District of South Carolina, Civil Action No. 3:90-3062-17: [1990-2003]: This 13-year long Federal litigation involved numerous alleged violations of Constitutional Rights of Juveniles incarcerated at DJJ. It was a landmark case in the area of Prison Overcrowding, which involved numerous Federal Hearings, Mediations, Orders, Opinions, and Appeals. I represented the Department of Juvenile Justice in Federal Court for three years.

(d)   In re: Stucco Litigation, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Civil action No. 5:96-CV-287-BR(2): Numerous individual cases and preliminary orders and opinions; On behalf of my client, I traveled to several states for depositions and pretrial hearings, argued Motions and wrote Pretrial Briefs. These cases involved the alleged failure of EIFS [Exterior Insulated Finish Systems], or 'fake stucco' in home construction. Plaintiffs had joined manufacturers, distributors, general contractors, and installers, and were attempting to certify the class in North Carolina. The judge refused to certify the class; thus, each claim was litigated individually.

(e)   Public Hearing Report of the Administrative Law Judge, No. 98-ALJ-11-0609-RH (July 28, 1999): I represented the S.C. Association of Marriage and Family Therapists at this hearing on the 'need and reasonableness' of these regulations before the Administrative Law Judge Division in January 1999. The regulations, as promulgated, were opposed by Clinical Psychologists, who attempted to impose upon Marriage and Family Counselors and Licensed Professional Counselors rigid undergraduate and graduate course requirements, including that counselors possess a Doctoral level degree before counseling a client with a 'serious' problem.

After the hearing, Judge Anderson issued an order which did not require a Doctoral degree for all Counselors, and remanded the regulation to the Board to establish reasonable criteria. The regulations which were ultimately approved by the General Assembly both protected the public health and welfare, and were reasonable for these highly-trained professionals."
The following is Judge Matthews' account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   City of Aiken v. Aiken Electric Cooperative, 305 S.C. 466, 409 S.E.2d 403 (1991): This brief and this appeal were the result of a collaborative effort on behalf of Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc., S.C. Public Service Authority [Santee Cooper], and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. I drafted the brief, and worked extensively with Crosby Lewis on the final product. The City of Aiken filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief when SCE&G attempted to extend its power lines to annexed areas of the city. The Trial Judge granted Summary Judgment in favor of the City.

The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City of Aiken acted within its Constitutional authority to designate the electric supplier for new customers in the annexed areas.

(b)   Alexander S. et al. v. Flora Brooks Boyd, et al., 113 F.3d 1373 (C.A.4 1997), cert. den. 118 S.Ct. 880, 139 L.Ed.2d 869 (1998): Lead counsel on brief and sole counsel on oral argument to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on case of first impression- the retroactive application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's limitations on Attorneys Fee Awards in Juvenile Prison Litigation under Section 1983. I also wrote the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U. S. Supreme Court; that Petition was denied.

(c)   Designer Showrooms, Inc. v. Kelley, 304 S.C. 478, 405 S.E.2d 417 (S.C.App.1991): Served as Counsel to the S. C. Association of Realtors in writing an Amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Realtors at the Court of Appeals. The issue was whether by affirming a contract which it was induced to enter by fraud, Designer Showrooms waived its right to sue in tort. The Court held that if fraud gives rise to a breach of promise or warranty, the party induced by fraud may elect to affirm the contract and later bring a tort action."

Judge Matthews provided the following list of criminal appeals she has personally handled:

"[Note: The Attorney General's practice from 1982-1986, when I was an Assistant Attorney General, was to list on the State's briefs the names of: (1) Attorney General Travis Medlock; (2) Harold M. Coombs, Jr., head of the Criminal Appeals Division, (3) the Solicitor who had tried the case, and (4) the Assistant Attorney General who actually wrote the brief and argued the case. My name at that time was Carolyn Matthews Adams.

I wrote all of the following briefs without any assistance or supervision from any of the attorneys whose names are also on the cover of the briefs. I also argued solo each of the following cases before the S.C. Supreme Court:

(a)   State v. Donald Henry 'Pee Wee' Gaskins, 284 S.C. 105, 326 S.E.2d 132 (1985): Sole Counsel representing State of South Carolina in Death Penalty Appeal to S.C. Supreme Court. The case involved a 10,000-page transcript, more than 200 pages of briefs, and many issues of first impression under South Carolina's Death Penalty statute. In favorem vitae review required that I be prepared at oral argument not only on the briefed issues, but also any other issues which might be raised by the Supreme Court.

(b)   State v. Kiser, 288 S.C. 441, 343 S.E.2d 292 (1986). Sole Counsel representing State of South Carolina in case of first impression--the constitutionality of South Carolina's newly-enacted Drug Trafficking Statute, which imposed the strictest penalties of any state in the United States. Affirmed Per Curiam after argument.

(c)   State v. Brantley, 279 S.C. 215, 305 S.E.2d 234 (1983). Sole Counsel for the State of South Carolina in briefing and arguing the Constitutional issue of the scope of a Circuit Judge's contempt power. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's inherent ability to punish for constructive contempt, even outside the Judicial Circuit.

(d)   State v. McLellan, 283 S.C. 389, 323 S.E.2d 772 (1984). Sole counsel for State on brief and at argument on several issues of first impression under Criminal Sexual Conduct statute: (1) Whether trial judge properly denied Motion for Mistrial based on the testimony of two sisters regarding evidence of prior abuse under the 'common scheme' test of State v. Lyle; (2) whether the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant's use and sale of marijuana; and (3) whether the trial judge's admitting opinion testimony by a lay witness constituted reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Judge on all issues.

(e)   In the Matter of Harry C., 280 S.C. 308, 313 S.E.2d (S.C. 1984). This case, tried in Family Court because of the age of the minor, dealt with the novel issue of whether entering a home through a door which was ajar constituted a 'breaking' sufficient to convict a Juvenile of the crime of 'housebreaking.' It also involved the scope of Judicial Notice; i.e., of whether 'tidy oil' was an Aromatic Hydrocarbon within the Legislature's definition of that term. The Supreme Court affirmed on both issues."

Regarding prior judicial positions, Judge Matthews reported the following:
"Administrative Law Judge, Seat #3: Elected June 2, 1999; reelected February 9, 2000. By statute, the Administrative Law Judge Division is given jurisdiction over (1) Contested Cases from State Agencies [including DHEC, DOR, DOT, DHHS, DSS, Department of Insurance, DNR, and SLED]; (2) Appeals from the Licensing Boards of LLR and other agencies [including Medicaid appeals, State Fire Marshal appeals; Appeals of Day-care and Foster Home license revocations; Child Welfare services; Qualified Domestic relations Orders; and Orders of the Director of the Department of Insurance]; and (3) Hearings involving the need for and reasonableness of Regulations promulgated by agencies governed by a single director, such as the Department of Insurance and LLR.

By S.C. Supreme Court case law, Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), the ALJD was given jurisdiction over inmates' appeals of non-collateral sentencing matters or administrative matters from the Department of Corrections.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has held that the ALJD does not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of statutes or regulations. Administrative Law Judges have jurisdiction to rule only on whether a statute or regulation has been unconstitutionally applied."
Judge Matthews provided the following list of her significant orders:

"(a)   South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Tin Products, Inc. and J. Gray Macaulay, et al., 00-ALJ-07-0353-CC (May 7, 2002). This environmental contested case involved a massive release of Organotins and dibutyl ether into the waters of Red Bank Creek and Crystal Lake, which resulted in massive fish kills, permanent closing of a portion of the Lexington County water and sewer system, and the closing of Crystal Lake. For numerous violations of the Pollution Control Act and the Hazardous Waste Management Act, DHEC imposed the largest fine in its history- $4 million. After numerous pretrial motions and a four-day hearing, I affirmed the DHEC Administrative Order with respect to all violations.

(b)   Charleston County Public Works v. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 02-ALJ-07-0262-CC (August 20, 2003). In this case, OCRM, while ostensibly granting a permit to build a causeway to Charleston County, instead required that the County build a bridge, which was outside the scope of the permit application. I reversed OCRM's decision on the grounds that: (1) its actions constituted an 'unwarranted exercise of discretion' under Section 1-23-380, and (2) the public was denied due process when OCRM failed to give notice of the permit conditions which radically altered the original application.

(c)   Anonymous Taxpayer v. S.C. Department of Revenue, 00-ALJ-17-0590-CC (April 17, 2001). This case involved two novel taxation issues: (1) whether meals included in hotel room charges were subject to a 7% accommodations tax or a 5% 'additional guest charges' tax and (2) whether food and beverages withdrawn from inventory were subject to Sales Tax. I upheld DOR's Order, holding that the 7% tax applied to the meal charges, and that the Sales Tax applied to inventory withdrawals.

(d)   Clarence T. Hamrick, III, D.M.D. v. S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation and State Board of Dentistry, 99-ALJ-11-0659-AP (June 19, 2000), affirmed on appeal by Circuit Court, 5th Judicial Circuit. This appeal dealt with the State Board of Dentistry's private reprimand of a dentist who allegedly failed to provide 'direct supervision' of a hygienist, as defined by the Code. Given the facts of this particular case, and the interpretation of its regulations, I found that the Board had exceeded its authority, because the Dentist's supervision complied with the requirements of the Code. The Circuit Court affirmed my Order.

(e)   Trident Medical Center, LLC and CareAlliance Health Services v. S.C. DHEC and HealthFirst, LLC, 02-ALJ-07-0026-CC (June 13, 2003). This contested Certificate of Need case involved balancing the need for a proposed Ambulatory Surgery Center with two operating rooms dedicated to ophthalmic surgery against the needs of existing hospitals in the Charleston area. After a four-day hearing, I found that Trident Medical Center's application complied with the requirements of The State Health Plan and that the Certificate of Need should be granted."
Judge Matthews provided the following regarding prior unsuccessful candidacies:
"I was a candidate for the Circuit Court in 1995, but withdrew when it became apparent I could not win."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Matthews' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Matthews is a qualified and highly-regarded judge who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Matthews is married to John Andrew McAllister, Jr. She has three children.
Judge Matthews reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar Association [November 8, 1978-present]:

S.C. Bar House of Delegates [1998-1999];

Mentor, S.C. Young Lawyers Division [1996-1999];

S.C. Bar Legislative Counsel Committee [1991-1996];

S.C. Bar Committee on Continuing Legal Education [1994-1997];

S.C. Bar Practice and Procedure Committee:

Subcommittee to draft legislation creating S.C. Court of Appeals;

(b)   Richland County Bar Association [1978-present]:

Chair, Legal Services Committee [1996-1999];

Chair, Richland County Bar Programs Committee [1991-1992];

(c)   S.C. Women Lawyers Association [1995-present]:

Board of Directors [1995-2001];

(d)   National Association of Women Lawyers [2003-present];

(e)   National Association of Administrative Law Judges [1999-     present];

(f)   S.C. Association of Administrative and Regulatory Law     Association [2000-present];

(g)   John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court [2002-present]."
Judge Matthews provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Governors Advisory Committee to Study the Commission on Women (Jan. 2004-present);

(b)   Leadership South Carolina (1993 Graduate);

(c)   Furman University National Development Council (1998-1999);

(d)   First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, S.C."
Judge Matthews further provided:
"The General Assembly of South Carolina has conferred on me the privilege of serving the State as an Administrative Law Judge for the past five years. Because the Administrative Law Judges hear contested cases from many state agencies, including DHEC, the Department of Revenue, and the Department of Transportation, we are affording due process and an opportunity to be heard to many citizens of South Carolina who have no other forum.
Contested cases involve matters as diverse as Certificates of Need for Hospitals, Designations as a Minority Business Enterprise, Environmental permitting and penalties, Property Tax Assessment Appeals from every county in the state, and permits for bridges and docks in the eight coastal counties. We also hear appeals from the 49 Licensing Boards of LLR, including doctors, dentists, nurses, well drillers, and general contractors who have been disciplined by their respective Boards, as well as appeals from other state agencies. Our orders affect the livelihood of these individuals and protect the public welfare and safety.
In my legal career, I have been fortunate to serve as Staff Attorney at the S.C. Supreme Court, as Law Clerk to the late Chief Justice George T. Gregory, Jr., and as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of South Carolina. During my tenure with the Attorney General's Office, I was assigned to the Criminal Appeals Division, and worked closely with the Solicitors in reviewing transcripts, writing more than 200 appellate briefs, and arguing more than 80 appeals solo before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in upholding criminal convictions. I also prosecuted licensees on behalf of the Medical Board and several other Boards, and handled the Boards' appeals. This extensive appellate background would be a great asset on the Court of Appeals.
I have also served as Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. In that position, I worked with all members of the General Assembly in drafting legislation and amendments, reviewing legislation and regulations, and being a part of the process of statutory enactment. While serving as attorney to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I received a true understanding of the fundamental principle of statutory construction; that is, that the Legislature's intent is paramount.
In ten years of private practice, I concentrated on administrative and appellate law and governmental relations. I represented clients before state agencies, including the Department of Insurance, DHEC, OCRM, and the Public Service Commission. I also participated in complex civil and federal court litigation.
The Administrative Law Judge Division was created by statute only ten years ago and final orders are appealed to the Circuit Court and then to the Court of Appeals. My administrative law background and experience as an Administrative Law Judge would be an asset to the Court of Appeals in reviewing this new body of law.
I am one of the few attorneys in the state who has worked for all three branches of state government--Judicial, Legislative, and Executive--providing a unique perspective and fundamental understanding of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. I have practiced law for 25 years and have tried, heard, and appealed a wide variety of cases. My legal experience is extremely broad and diverse. I am 53 years old and believe I have the experience and maturity to be a member of the Court of Appeals."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission noted Judge Matthews' extensive range of legal experience in all the branches of state government. They found her gracious demeanor and quick intellect would serve her well on the Court of Appeals. The Commission found Judge Carolyn C. Matthews qualified for service on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Short meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Short was born on January 13, 1947. He is 57 years old and a resident of Chester, South Carolina. Judge Short provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Short.
Judge Short demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Short reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Short testified he has not:

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

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

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Short testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Short to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Short described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2003

01/24     18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

05/07     SCACJ Circuit Judges Meeting;

08/07     Roscoe Pound Institute, The Civil Jury in America;
2002

01/25     S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

05/08     SCACJ Circuit Judges' Annual Convention;

08/01     S.C. Trial Lawyers Assoc. Annual Convention;

08/22     SCCA Judicial Conference;
2001

01/26     S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

01/05     York County Bar Assoc., Sticks & Stones,             Appointed;

05/09     S.C. Assoc. Circuit Judges' Conference;

07/09     National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Law &             the Social & Behavioral Sciences;

08/23     S.C. Circuit Court Assoc. Judicial Conference;
2000

01/21     S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

05/10     S.C. Assoc. Circuit Judges' Conference;

08/07     National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Media             and the Courts;
1999

01/22     S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

05/12     S.C. Assoc. Circuit Judges' Conference;

07/19-07/23   National Judicial College, Reno, NV,               Constitutional Criminal Procedure; History &             Theory of Jurisprudence;

07/26     National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Judicial             Writing;

08/05     S.C. Trial Lawyers Assoc., Annual               Convention;

08/19     S.C. Circuit Court Assoc. Judicial               Conference."
Judge Short reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   September 15, 1995: South Carolina Legal Secretaries Association. I was the instructor for a Seminar on Rules of Civil Procedure.
(b)   September 30 - October 18, 1996: National Judicial College/Reno, Nevada. I served as a Group Facilitator with the faculty for the General Jurisdiction Course for new Judges. I led group discussions four (4) hours each day on a wide variety of legal topics.
(c)   September 29, 1997: South Carolina Solicitor's Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I spoke on the topic "Case File Development and Review, A View from the Judiciary."
Regarding books or articles published, Judge Short reported: "with the exception of writing my thesis, I have completed the Master of Judicial Studies Program sponsored by the National Judicial College at the University of Nevada, Reno. I have written several research papers to complete the course work requirement of the program and can provide copies if needed."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Short did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Short did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Short has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Short was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Short reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Short reported the following regarding his military service:
"U.S. Army, June 1968; entered active duty August 1971; discharged from active duty November 1971; served S.C. National Guard until 1973; Discharged U.S. Army Reserve, 1974; Highest rank attained was 1st Lieutenant; Present Status, Inactive Reserve; Honorably Discharged as Captain."
Judge Short provided the following relative to public offices held:
"(a)   South Carolina House of Representatives, elected, 1982-1991;
(b)   Chester County Airport Commission, appointed, 1978-1980;
(c)   Chester County Attorney, appointed, 1980-1982."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Short appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Short appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Short was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.
Judge Short provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"I began the general practice of law in November 1971, in Chester, South Carolina, with Mr. Fred H. Strickland and Mr. E.K. Hardin. I practiced law continuously in the same firm. In late 1972, I became a partner in the firm and in approximately June 1973, Mr. Strickland was tragically killed in a house fire and I became senior partner at the age of 26. Mr. William C. Keels graduated from law school in June 1973, and he and I began practicing law together at that time. I was honored to have been elected to the South Carolina Circuit Court At-Large Seat #8 on February 1, 1991, and served continuously until February 1999, when I was elected Resident Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit."
Judge Short reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   Occasionally;

(b)   state:     Regularly."
Judge Short reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     20%;

(b)   criminal:   50%;

(c)   domestic:   30%."
Judge Short reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     95%;

(b)   non-jury:   5%."
Judge Short provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as sole counsel and occasionally as chief counsel.
The following is Judge Short's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Walter Neal and Industrial Chemical Company, Inc. v. J. Simpson Darby, L.H. Schwieterman, John Archie Lucas, Donald B. Murray, Marion M. Thomas, and J. F. Martin, as members of the Chester County Council and the County of Chester, (1984). Court of Appeals Opinion #0207 filed June 22, 1984. I was Chester County Attorney in 1980 and the Chester County Council was in the process of adopting an ordinance pertaining to the handling and storage of hazardous chemicals in Chester County. Mr. Neal brought suit in Common Pleas Court to question the constitutionality of the ordinance and the county counter-claimed on the ground that Mr. Neal's landfill site was a public nuisance. The case was significant both at the trial level and the appellate level, because a small rural county was attempting to protect its citizens and their environment from the disposal of out-of-state hazardous waste. The trial judge and the Court of Appeals both found that the landfill constituted a public nuisance by virtue of its location and upheld the permanent injunction to prevent further disposal of hazardous chemical waste at the site.

(b)   Chester County Hospital and Nursing Center v. J.F. Martin, Simpson Darby, John Lucas, Marion M. Thomas, Don Murray, Carlisle Roddey, Lowell Schweiterman, individually and as members of the Chester County Council, and the Chester County Council, (1984). South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion #22053 filed March 6, 1984. In 1981, the Chester County Council was in the process of adopting an ordinance to increase the size of the Chester County Hospital Board and to provide that Council would appoint said Board members. This Board had previously been created by a local act of the General Assembly in 1947 which provided that vacancies would be filled by a two-thirds vote of the remaining Board members themselves. The Board petitioned the Circuit Court for an injunction to prevent the Council from enacting the ordinance. After an extensive hearing on the matter, which included the testimony of many respected leaders of the community such as U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Hemphill, deceased, the lower Court issued a permanent injunction on the grounds that the County was attempting to exercise power beyond its limitations in violation of Section 4-9-170, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended. The South Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case and vacated the injunction. The Court stated that it was well recognized that a Court could not restrain by injunction, the exercise of legislative power by counties. The Court cited 43A C.J.S., which states that restraining power of a Court should be directed against enforcement rather than passage of ordinances. The case is very significant because the Court upheld the County's actions which were undertaken because of the Home Rule Act.

(c)   Vera B. Lawson, Executrix of the Estate of Robert Smith Lawson, deceased v. Bowaters Carolina Corporation, U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals #77-8320. Order filed October 31, 1977. In this case, I represented the Estate of a painter who was killed while painting the Defendant's plant in Rock Hill, South Carolina. The Plaintiff's husband was employed by Robert's Paint Company, which had a contract with Bowaters to paint their facility. The Plaintiff's husband was killed when an employee of Bowaters drove a forklift into the scaffold supports, thereby knocking the deceased to the ground. A death claim against Robert's Paint Company was filed for Workman's Comp benefits before the South Carolina Industrial Commission and the claim was approved. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against Bowaters Carolina Corporation in U.S. District Court. The Defendant moved for Summary Judgment contending that under the provisions of the S.C. Workman's Compensation Act the Plaintiff's deceased husband was the 'statutory employee' of the Defendant, and, therefore, the Plaintiff's sole remedy would be under the provisions of that act. After considering the briefs filed by me and after oral arguments of counsel, Judge Hemphill issued his Order on September 15, 1977, in which he denied the Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered the case be calendared for Jury trial. The Defendant petitioned the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal Judge Hemphill's Order, basing its argument on the grounds that there was a conflict between interpretation of controlling State law between the United States Supreme Court and the South Carolina Supreme Court. They denied the Defendant's petition and the case was later settled. This case was significant because it involved the question of the definition of a statutory employee under the South Carolina Workers' Comp Act.

(d)   Canzadia White, as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard C. Carter, deceased v. Holsum Bakery, Inc., (1972). This was a wrongful death case in which all of the witnesses of the Plaintiff's accident were the deceased's minor children. A lot of preparation was required to ensure that the minor children would be qualified by the Court to testify. A verdict was returned for the Plaintiff, and it has been said that this was at that time, the highest jury verdict returned in Chester County for the wrongful death of a black man.

(e)   Crystal J. Harmon, Committee for Benjamin Joseph Harmon, an Incompetent v. Aegis Corporation, Long Mill Rubber Company and Ryder Truck Rental Company, U.S. District Court, Greenville Division. Complaint filed August 1, 1985. The Plaintiff, Benjamin J. Harmon, age 21, suffered a totally and permanently disabling brain injury on July 14, 1983, when the automobile he was driving was struck by the Defendant, who had disregarded a traffic control device. I began representing the Plaintiff shortly after his accident, and successfully negotiated an agreement that the carrier would pay for immediate medical care. This was medically significant because it is essential that a person with a brain injury receive extensive rehabilitation immediately after the injury to maximize potential improvement. During my representation, I traveled rather extensively and learned that there are not many facilities in the United States that can adequately care for those with head injuries. A jury was drawn for trial, however, approximately one week before the trial was scheduled to begin, the case was settled in 1986. It was a personally significant case in that it was the largest settlement I ever obtained and required more preparation than any other legal matter I ever handled."
The following is Judge Short's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Walter Neal and Industrial Chemical Company, Inc. v. J. Simpson Darby, L.H. Schwieterman, John Archie Lucas, Donald B. Murray, Marion M. Thomas, and J. F. Martin as members of the Chester County Council and the County of Chester, S.C. Court of Appeals, June 22, 1984; 282 S.C. 277; 318 S.E.2d 18.

(b)   Chester County Hospital and Nursing Center v. J.F. Martin, Simpson Darby, John Lucas, Marion M. Thomas, Don Murray, Charlisle Roddey, Lowell Schweiterman, individually and as members of the Chester County Council, and the Chester County Council, S.C. Court of Appeals; March 6, 1984; 281 S.C. 25; 314 S.E.2d 25.

(c)   Thomas Beckham v. Sara Kay B. Short, S.C. Supreme Court and S.C. Court of Appeals, June 5, 1989, and January 25, 1988; 380 S.E. 2d 826; 298 S.C. 348; 365 S.E.2d 42; 294 S.C. 415

(d)   Patricia Moore Lucas v. Ernest Wendell Lucas, S.C. Supreme Court, May 9, 1983; 302 S.E.2d. 863; S.C.

(e)   Willie Mack Thomas, Sr. and Naomi F. Thomas v. George Wilson, individually and d/b/a Palmetto Mobile Homes, S.C. Court of Appeals, March 9, 1984, Memorandum Opinion No. 84-MO-007."
Judge Short reported the following regarding criminal appeals he has handled:
"I have been serving as a Circuit Court Judge since July 1991, and have not practiced law since that time. I handled a number of criminal cases; however, I do not recall any of the cases being appealed to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals. I do recall several criminal appeals from the Magistrate Court to the Circuit Court, but I do not recall the names of the individual Defendants at this time."
Regarding prior judicial positions he has held, Judge Short provided:
"(a)   July 1991-February 1999; Elected, South Carolina Circuit Court at Large Seat #8;
(b)   February 1999-Present; Elected, Resident Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit."
Judge Short provided the following list of his significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Louis J. Truesdale v. Parker D. Evatt, and the South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al. The subject of this Order deals with the reimbursement of expenses incurred by expert witnesses called upon by Petitioner Truesdale in his death penalty case. The Appeal of his case is reported at 301 S.C. 546, 393 S.E.2d 168.
(b)   State of South Carolina v. Gary Allen Rimert, Opinion No. 24093, 446 S.E.2d 400. The issue addressed in this Order is whether or not a jury in a criminal case is entitled to hear evidence regarding the sentence a Defendant may receive if he is found guilty but mentally ill. I held that the jury's function was to determine guilt and that information about sentencing is irrelevant to such a determination. The Supreme Court affirmed.
(c)   Carol Ann Berkebile v. William C. Outen, 311 S.C. 50 and 426 S.E.2d 760. This Order holds that losses from video poker playing are not recoverable pursuant to Section 32-1-10, S.C. Code Ann. I held that Section 32-1-10 removed the common law bar to recovery of losses from engaging in illegal gambling. Therefore, if the loss resulted from legal gambling, Section 21-1-10 does not apply and a Plaintiff cannot recover. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed and I was reversed.
(d)   City of Folly Beach v. Atlantic House Properties, Opinion No. 24384, 321 S.C. 241, 467 S.E.2d 928. In this Order, I ordered that the Defendants in a condemnation action pay the Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys fee pursuant to Section 28-2-510 S.C. Code Ann. Supreme Court reversed.
(e)   Betty Williams et al. v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Rock Hill and New Hope Carolina, Inc. This Order affirms the City of Rock Hill Zoning Commission's issuance of a permit to New Hope Carolina allowing it to operate an institution to care for emotionally handicapped children."
Judge Short reported that he ran for the Court of Appeals in 2002 and 2003, but withdrew before the election.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Short's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
Judge Short is married to Linda Huffstetler Short. He has two children.
Judge Short reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   Chester County Bar Association;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   South Carolina Association of Circuit Court Judges, Past       President, 2000-2001;
(d)   American Bar Association."
Judge Short provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Purity Presbyterian Church: Former Elder; Former Deacon;
(b)   Sertoma International, Life Member;
(c)   Chester Shrine Club;
(d)   Chester Masonic Lodge;
(e)   American Legion;
(f)   Chester Men's Golf Association;
(g)   Phi Delta Phi;
(h)   Chester/Fairfield Citadel Club."
Judge Short further provided that while he was practicing law, he had the pleasure to serve and gain valuable experience on the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission commented on Judge Short's excellent control of the courtroom, both in civil and criminal matters. They noted his fairness and breadth of experience as a Circuit Court Judge. The Commission found Judge Paul E. Short, Jr. qualified and nominated him for election as a judge on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Stevens meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Stevens was born on October 7, 1949. He is 54 years old and a resident of Simpsonville, South Carolina. Judge Stevens provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Stevens.
Judge Stevens 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 Stevens reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Stevens 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 Stevens 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 Stevens to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Stevens described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have satisfied all CLE requirements during the past five years with programs attended including the following:
January 1999   Ethical Dilemmas, Ethics program;
January 1999   That Was The Year That Was, Overview of new law;
January 1999   Government Law, Current issues in government law;
March 2000   3rd Annual ALJ Southern States Seminar, Procedural issues in Administrative Law;
April 2000     Lunch & Learn: Technology, Computer use for legal problems;
February 2001   Objections at Trial, Courtroom evidence;
December 2001   Criminal Trial Practice, Trial of capital murder case;
November 2002   Art of Advocacy, Effective presentation methods;
December 2002   Tips From the Bench, Trial and appellate points;
December 2002   An Optimal View of 2002, Review of legal developments during 2002;
September 2003   Finding Answers in the Administrative Law Jungle, Issues in Administrative Law;
December 2003   Litigation Technology Roadshow, Computers and law practice;
December 2003   4th Circuit Labor Law Update, Review of labor law issues."
Judge Stevens reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"A.   Law Related Courses Taught

1.   Taught fundamentals of Federal Taxation of partnerships, corporations, and estates at Midlands Technical College, Columbia, S.C.

2.   Guest lectures at USC Law School, State and Local Tax classes including:

a. Duties and functions of county officials in property taxation

b. Taxation of railroads under the Federal 4-R Act
B.   Lecturer at Bar Associations

1.   S.C. Bar: Taught Administrative Law for Bridge the Gap each     year of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.

2.   S.C. Bar: Annual Convention, Governmental Section, Litigating     Before the ALJD, Summer 1999

3.   S.C. Bar: 1999 That Was the Year That Was Review of

Changes in Administrative Law

4.   Greenville County Tax Bar

a. Remedies and Procedures for Suits Against State Officials

b. Adm. Procedures Before the S.C. Dept. Of Revenue

5.   Columbia Tax Study Group-Tax Practice Under the Revenue Procedures Act
C.   Continuing Legal Education Lectures

1.   Federation of Tax Administrators-42 USC Section 1983 in State     Court Tax Disputes

2.   Southeastern Association of Tax Attorneys

a. Collecting Taxes Under An Automatic Stay Due To Bankruptcy

b. Nexus and Jurisdiction for Taxation Of Delaware Holding Companies

3.   Vanderbilt University's Paul J. Hartman Tax Forum

a. Moot Court Presentation on Taxation of Intangibles

b. Geoffrey v. South Carolina: Is the Camel's Nose Under the Tent?

4.   Ohio Tax Conference-Intangibles and the Creation of Nexus     For Income Tax Purposes.

5.   S.C. Chamber of Commerce-Taxes and the Bottom Line:     New Tax Appeal Process."
Judge Stevens reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   'Unwanted Assets Spun Off Prior to Acquisition of Wanted Assets'

1980 South Carolina Bar Publication;

(b)   'The Use of Title 42 USC Section 1983 in State Tax Litigation'

1988 REVENUE ADMINISTRATION;

(c)   'Delaware Subsidiaries Can Still Reduce Tax But More Planning Needed;'

March/April 1992 THE JOURNAL OF MULTISTATE TAXATION;

(d)   'Geoffrey v. South Carolina Tax Commission: Is the Camel's Nose Under the Tent?'

Tax Management, Multistate Tax Report, December 22, 1995."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Stevens did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Stevens did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Stevens has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Stevens 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 Stevens reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell because he was a judge, and that prior to becoming a judge he had no rating because he was in public service with the S.C. Attorney General's Office.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Stevens appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Stevens appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Stevens was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
Judge Stevens provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1978-79     Stophel, Caldwell & Heggie

General corporate practice with emphasis on taxation.
1979-80     U.S. Internal Revenue Service

Federal estate and gift tax return examiner.
1980-95     S.C. Attorney General

Chief Deputy Attorney General and Director of Tax Division; issued Attorney General Opinions and responsible for all tax litigation as well as defense of State at all levels from administrative hearings to trials in the state and federal courts.
1995-present   Administrative Law Judge Division

Judge presiding over contested cases, appeals and regulation reviews."
Judge Stevens reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   Federal District Court, 2 times;

U.S. Supreme Court, 3 times, once on brief in chief, twice on brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari;

(b)   state:     Trial Court, 21 times: 10 appearances with case settled before trial, and 11 appearances conducting trial as lead counsel.

S.C. Court of Appeals, 3 times: once as lead counsel writing all briefs and making oral argument; two times as assisting counsel.

S.C. Supreme Court, 12 times: 8 times as lead counsel writing all briefs and making oral argument; 4 as assisting counsel."
Judge Stevens reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     100%."
Judge Stevens reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   non-jury:   100%."
Judge Stevens provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as sole counsel with other attorneys in office listed in name only on the pleadings.
The following is Judge Stevens' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Spencer v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 281 S.C. 492, 316 S.E.2d 386 (May 15, 1984), Certiorari Granted by 469 U.S. 879, 105 S.Ct. 242, (Oct. 1984), Judgment Affirmed by Spencer v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 471 U.S. 82, 105 S.Ct. 1859 (Mar 27, 1985), Rehearing Denied by 471 U.S. 1112, 105 S.Ct. 2349 (May 13, 1985). The S.C. Supreme Court established that 42 USC Section 1983 could not be used in state court to recover taxes paid and correspondingly established that attorney fees could not be obtained against the State under the companion federal statute of 42 USC Section 1988. Briefing and oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in a decision affirming the S.C. Supreme Court by a 4 to 4 decision with Justice Powell abstaining.

(b)   Reyelt v. State of South Carolina, United States District Court, 6:93-1491-3 (Nov. 15, 1993). This unappealed decision determined that South Carolina's initial Video Game Machines Act was constitutional in light of challenges that the Act violated free speech, constituted an involuntary taking, created an impairment of contract, failed to grant equal protection, infringed rights under the commerce clause, and denied individual's their rights to privileges and immunities. While upholding the Act in general, the decision did find S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-21-2804's use of the phrase 'the primary and substantial portion of the establishment's gross proceeds' was unconstitutionally vague.

(c)   Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 313 S.C. 15, 437 S.E.2d 13 (Jul 06, 1993), Certiorari Denied by 510 U.S. 992, 114 S.Ct. 550, (Nov 29, 1993). This decision established that due process is not violated by taxing an entity that utilizes an intangible (i.e. a trademark) in South Carolina to produce income even when the entity has no employees, no office, and no physical presence in the State.

(d)   M. Lowenstein Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 298 S.C. 93, 378 S.E.2d 272 (Ct. App. Mar 13, 1989). This decision determined that due process is not violated by taxing the interest income of a taxpayer so long as the interest income is part of the taxpayer's unitary business and so long as a portion of the unitary business is carried on in South Carolina.

(e)   South Carolina Tax Com'n v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 316 S.C. 163, 447 S.E.2d 843 (Jul 18, 1994). This case decided that the Freedom of Information Act does not prevent an agency from disclosing allegedly confidential contract documents and pollution investigation documents when those documents are voluntarily given to a state agency in an effort to lower a tax assessment."
The following is Judge Stevens' account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 313 S.C. 15, 437 S.E.2d 13 (Jul 06, 1993), Certiorari Denied by 510 U.S. 992, 114 S.Ct. 550, (Nov 29, 1993).

(b)   South Carolina Tax Com'n v. South Carolina Tax Bd. of Review, 305 S.C. 183, 407 S.E.2d 627 (May 06, 1991), Certiorari Denied by Collins Music Co., Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 502 U.S. 1034, 112 S.Ct. 878, (Jan 13, 1992).

(c)   Thayer v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 307 S.C. 6, 413 S.E.2d 810 (Jan. 13, 1992), rehearing denied (Feb 20, 1992).

(d)   NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 304 S.C. 1, 402 S.E.2d 666 (Feb 04, 1991), Appeal After Remand, NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 312 S.C. 52, 439 S.E.2d 254 (Dec 13, 1993), Certiorari Denied by NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 512 U.S. 1245, 114 S.Ct. 2763, (Jun 27, 1994).

(e)   M. Lowenstein Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 298 S.C. 93, 378 S.E.2d 272 (Ct. App. Mar 13, 1989)."

Judge Stevens reported that he was elected by the General Assembly on March 21, 1995, to the office of Administrative Law Judge, Seat #5. He took the oath of office on April 14, 1995, and has served continuously since. He further provided: "Pursuant to the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act, I preside over hearings, render decisions and issue orders in a broad range of administrative cases involving governmental agencies and private parties. Jurisdiction includes administrative cases involving health, childcare, environmental, natural resource, insurance, alcoholic beverage, and tax issues, as well as other licensing matters. Cases are heard as contested cases at an evidentiary trial level as well as appellate cases decided on briefs and oral argument. Finally, ALJs also exercise certain equitable, subpoena, and contempt powers."

Judge Stevens provided the following list of significant orders:

"(a)   D. Michael Woodward, M.D. v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation--Division of Professional and Occupational Licensing, Board of Medical Examiners, 98-ALJ-11-0587-AP, June 1, 1999. Allegations of improper sexual conduct by a physician required an appellate review which examined constitutional and statutory challenges to an alleged 'unfair hearing' held by the Medical Board. While errors were committed by the Board, a harmless error analysis found the mistakes insufficient to form a basis for reversal of the Board's decision.

(b)   Gaffney Properties as an affiliate of Boyd Management v. Lee S. Harmon, Cherokee County Assessor, 95-ALJ-17-0265-CC, decided November 8, 1995. This case established an innovative method for valuing subsidized housing projects for property tax purposes. The fair market value is based upon adding the value of the rental income stream, the value of the Government's 'interest subsidy,' and the value of the federal income tax credits granted to owners of subsidized housing.

(c)   Oncology Therapies of Greenville, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Greenville Cancer Center, and Greenville Hospital System, 96-ALJ-07-0205-CC, decided June 6, 1997. This case established that the standard of proof in a Certificate of Need (CON) case is that of the preponderance of the evidence with the Administrative Law Judge acting as the fact-finder and the DHEC Board as the appellate review authority. Further, the case established that an ALJ hearing a CON controversy does not act as a mere 'reviewer' of the DHEC staff decision. Rather, the ALJ conducts a contested case in which evidence is weighed to determine whether granting or denying a CON is warranted.

(d)   Medstar Ambulance Service, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 96-ALJ-07-0498-CC, decided May 6, 1997. This case revoked an ambulance license for numerous violations of DHEC statutes and regulations and required examining dozens of licensing procedures, highway safety statutes, and rules for training, certification and personnel requirements of emergency medical technicians. The case also held the revocation proceeding need not examine evidence under the stringent clear and convincing standard but under the less demanding standard of preponderance of the evidence.

(e)   Dennison A. Royal v. Charleston County Assessor, 95-ALJ-17-0522-CC, decided December 12, 1995. This case found the county's property value methodology discriminated against the taxpayer in violation of the equal protection clause of the Federal and State Constitution. The assessor subjected the taxpayer to a different valuation method than other similarly situated taxpayers. This practice caused a higher value to inherently attach to the taxpayer's property and thus violated his rights to equal treatment and uniformity."

Judge Stevens reported the following regarding prior unsuccessful candidacies:

"ALJ Seat #1 in February 1994 and ALJ Seat #6 in May 1994. Also, nominated but not elected in a race for Court of Appeals, Seat #3 in February 2000."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Stevens' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Stevens was qualified to sit on the Court of Appeals. He was highly recommended by the Upstate Citizens Committee.
Judge Stevens is married to Janice Louise Shapiro Stevens. He has three children.
Judge Stevens reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Member of S.C. Bar;

(b)   Member of Greenville County Bar."
Judge Stevens reported that he was past publicity chairman for a band booster club. Judge Stevens further reported that he was an active member and deacon at Pendleton Street Baptist Church, Greenville, South Carolina, serving in various capacities including Staff Resources Committee (personnel committee).
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission noted Judge Stevens' astute legal mind as evidenced by his scholarly work product. They also commented on his outstanding reputation in the legal community. The Commission found Judge Ray N. Stevens qualified for service on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Pieper meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Pieper was born on October 8, 1961. He is 42 years old and a resident of North Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Pieper 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 Pieper.
Judge Pieper 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 Pieper reported that he has the following campaign expenditures: "Postage to mail announcement $57; Envelopes $10; Paper $5."
Judge Pieper 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 Pieper 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 Pieper to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Pieper described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Circuit Judges' Meeting in May of each year;

(b)   Judicial Conference in August of each year;

(c)   S.C. Bar Criminal law update each year in January;

(d)   S.C. Bar's Tips from the Bench which I put on for the bar in December of each year. This program offers practice tips for all levels of court in our state.
I generally have in excess of 30 additional CLE hours to carry forward each year."
Judge Pieper reported that he has taught or lectured as follows:
"I spoke at a CLE for Masters-in-Equity on civil procedure. I currently put together an annual program for the S.C. Bar that covers practice pointers for all the various courts in the State. It has been a very popular program for the Bar during the last few years."
Judge Pieper reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Pieper did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Pieper did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Pieper has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Pieper 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 Pieper reported that, as far as he knows, he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Pieper appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Pieper appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Pieper was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.
Judge Pieper provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"March 1985 - August 1985: Lawclerk, U.S. District Court, for United States Magistrate Judge Robert Carr. I was responsible for researching the law and writing reports and recommendations for disposition of various cases such as employment and civil rights cases, social security, habeas corpus and other prisoner litigation, and all other civil cases referred to the office. Also, I attended and prepared for all criminal proceedings before Judge Carr. In August, I left to attend N.Y.U. For a few weeks after I returned from N.Y.U., I worked as an attorney with a law firm handling foreclosures, estate planning, and civil matters.
Fall 1986 - Fall 1988: Senior Lawclerk, U.S. District Court for Judge Sol Blatt, Jr. I worked on a wide variety of civil and criminal matters involving issues of statutory and constitutional law, including habeas corpus review of decisions of the S.C. Supreme Court. Essentially, I received training and exposure to all aspects of trial, including complex litigation.
August 1988 - December 1990: During part of this time, I was associated with a lawyer under the name of Pieper & Stokes (Mark); six months thereafter, we associated with another lawyer (Kinard) but chose to operate as separate entities. Character of practice--real estate, probate, estate planning and general civil matters.
Summer 1990 - Summer 1993; Summer 1993 - Summer 1995: Returned to U.S. District Court at request of Judge Blatt, because of my class action experience, to assist with the complicated bankruptcy class action for Patriots Point. After the case was completed, I was asked to stay in a career position. [The first six months of this period overlaps with my private practice time above because I was technically "of counsel" to the Court]. From Summer 1993 - Summer 1995, I assisted the court one day a week since I was appointed Master-in-Equity.
April 1989 - October 1991: Part-time Berkeley County Magistrate (chronologically - this overlaps with the federal court position as I worked at night). Presided over all cases assigned to my office. Eventually, I was appointed Chief Magistrate.
June 1993 - June 1996: Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge. Duties - I presided over all circuit court nonjury trials and proceedings referred to my office for disposition; in addition, as Special Circuit Judge, I presided over most pretrial proceedings and motions in civil jury and nonjury cases; minor settlements; civil or criminal appeals from magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as judicial review of state agency cases such as workers' compensation appeals, and grand jury proceedings. I gained a wide variety of circuit court judicial experience.
June 1996 - present: Resident Circuit Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit. Preside over all civil and criminal matters and appeals within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. I have also been assigned as an Acting Supreme Court Justice."
Judge Pieper reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:
"(a)   state:   If I appeared in court, it would have been state court       for minor motions."
Judge Pieper reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:
"(a)   civil:     94%;
(b)   criminal:   5%;
(c)   domestic:   1%."
Judge Pieper reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   non-jury:   100%."
Judge Pieper provided that prior to election to the bench he most often served as associate counsel.
Regarding significant litigated matters, Judge Pieper stated:
"I handled tax and estate planning matters as well as collection and foreclosure proceedings which fortunately did not involve significant litigation. I do not know of anything that was something other than routine.
Note: As a trial judge, I have presided over 400-500 jury trials for all types of matters both civil and criminal."
Regarding civil appeals, Judge Pieper stated:
"I handled tax and estate planning matters as well as foreclosure proceedings which fortunately did not involve appeals. The appeals work that I did involved working on briefs and legal arguments which did not require me to personally handle the case as requested in the question.
Note: As a trial judge, I have heard hundreds of appeals from magistrate and municipal courts, probate courts, and administrative agencies. The same methodology would apply to handling these matters on the Court of Appeals."
Regarding criminal appeals, Judge Pieper stated:
"I handled tax and estate planning matters as well as foreclosure proceedings which fortunately did not involve appeals. Any appeals work that I did involved working on briefs and legal arguments which did not require me to personally handle the case as requested in the question. For example, in State v. Tanner, 385 S.E.2d 832 (1989), I assisted my partner with the brief but I was not personally handling the case. The case resulted in a reversal of a criminal conviction based on the asserted error of the court in denying a continuance which is very rare in this state."
Judge Pieper reported that he has held the following judicial positions:
"April 1989 - October 1991: Part-time Berkeley County Magistrate; appointed position; civil jurisdiction of $2500 and limited criminal jurisdiction depending on the statute involved. Presided over all cases assigned to my office. Eventually, I was appointed Chief Magistrate.
June 1993 - June 1996: Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge; appointed position. Duties - I presided over all circuit court nonjury trials and proceedings referred to my office for disposition; in addition, as Special Circuit Judge, I presided over most pretrial proceedings and motions in civil jury and nonjury cases; minor settlements; civil or criminal appeals from magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as judicial review of state agency cases such as workers' compensation appeals, and grand jury proceedings. I gained a wide variety of circuit court judicial experience.
June 1996 - present: Resident Circuit Court Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit; elected by the General Assembly. Preside over all civil and criminal matters and appeals within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. I have served several times as Chief Judge and have been assigned as an Acting Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court."
Judge Pieper provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Stewart v. Richland Memorial Hospital, 567 S.E.2d 510 (S.C. App. 2002). This case involved a negligence action against a public hospital alleging a nurse breached the standard of care. The case focused on the applicable standard under the Tort Claims Act as well as the applicability of the Act's mandatory caps. Affirmed.

(b)   Duke Power v. Public Service Comm. of S.C., 541 S.E.2d 250 (2001). This was an interesting case regarding a utility's right to serve a particular territory. Affirmed.

(c)   State v. Harvin, 547 S.E.2d 497 (2001); murder/armed robbery case. This case involved a novel issue of the applicability of New York law to a statement given by the defendant while detained in that state on an unrelated charge. Affirmed.

(d)   State v. Dennis, 523 S.E.2d 173 (1999); murder trial. The case dealt with interesting issues pertaining to severance as well as the use of an excited utterance by a co-defendant and whether the use of that statement violated the confrontation clause. Affirmed.

(e)   State v. Cannon, 520 S.E.2d 317 (1999); drug case. Originally, the Court of Appeals reversed the court's decision allowing the introduction into evidence of certain drugs that were seized incident to a warrantless arrest. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and held that the trial court's ruling was correct. The case involved a problematic provision in the criminal domestic violence act."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Pieper's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Pieper to be a well-qualified and highly-respected Circuit Court judge. The committee wholeheartedly approved of his candidacy for the Court of Appeals.
Judge Pieper is not married. He has no children.
Judge Pieper reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   Honorary Member, Charleston and Berkeley County Bar       Associations."
Regarding membership in civic, charitable, educational, social, and fraternal organizations, Judge Pieper reported: "because of my judicial position, I have avoided these activities so that I would not run afoul of the judicial code prohibition on judges in regard to fundraising activities."
Judge Pieper provided the following additional information:
"I have always been innovative, diligent and imaginative. I am also technology oriented in the operation of my office. I feel these qualities are very useful as the judiciary strives to adjust to increasing caseloads. I feel that I have been raised in the courtroom, having spent much of my career time working for, or presiding over court.
As a circuit judge over the last eight years, I have been exposed to a wide range of matters, including hundreds of appeals from the magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as from administrative agencies. This experience is invaluable as it relates to the disposition of such matters on a higher appellate court. In addition, I have been assigned as an Acting Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court.
Furthermore, as a judge, I have presided over hundreds of civil and criminal jury trials, as well as thousands of nonjury proceedings. Most lawyers in the course of their entire career are never exposed to this type of experience. I believe this extensive experience presiding over various trials and appeals, along with the broad range of knowledge that I have attained serving on various courts in our State would allow me to contribute greatly to the Court of Appeals if the Legislature gives me the opportunity to continue serving our state in another capacity.
I have a reputation for preparing in advance and drafting most of my own orders as opposed to merely relying on orders submitted by counsel. My extensive legal writing experience at both the state and federal levels would assist me in performing the judicial duties of an appeals judge.
I also have a reputation of requiring everyone to play by the rules and to dot all the "i's" and to cross all the "t's" in order to assure that everyone receives a fair day in court.
I am greatly humbled by the honor of being considered for such an important position."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission noted Judge Pieper's analytical ability and his varying experience on the bench ranging from magistrate, to Master-in-Equity, to Circuit Court judge. They found that he was an extremely dedicated and hard-working jurist. The Commission found Judge Daniel F. Pieper qualified and nominated him for election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Thomas meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Thomas was born on October 20, 1957. She is 46 years old and a resident of Pawleys Island, South Carolina. Judge Thomas provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Thomas.
Judge Thomas demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Thomas reported that she has made expenditures of $35.00 for paper and envelopes and $62.53 for postage.
Judge Thomas 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 Thomas testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Thomas to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Thomas described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   14th Annual Criminal Law Update, 01/22/1999;

(b)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges, 05/12/1999;

(c)   Judicial Conference, 08/19/1999;

(d)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges, 05/10/2000;

(e)   Annual Judicial Conference, 08/16/2000;

(f)   Criminal Law Update, 01/26/2001;

(g)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges, 05/09/2001;

(h)   Judicial Conference, 08/23/2001;

(i)     Criminal Law Update, 01/25/2002;

(j)     Criminal Law Update, 01/24/2003;

(k)   S.C. Circuit Court Judges, 05/07/2003;

(l)     2003 Annual SCTLA Convention, 08/07/2003;

(m)   Judicial Conference, 08/21/2003;

(n)   2nd Annual Civil Law Update, 01/23/2004;

(o)   19th Annual Criminal Law Update, 01/23/2004."
Judge Thomas reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"August 6, 1993   'Restructured State Government & The State of Administrative Law.' Speaker;
April 26, 1996   'So You Want To Be A Judge'--Women in Law, Columbia, S.C., Speaker (legislative perspective about judicial elections)."
Judge Thomas reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Thomas did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Thomas did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Thomas has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Thomas was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Thomas reported that she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Thomas reported that she was elected to South Carolina House Seat 108, and served from 1993 until 1996.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Thomas appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Thomas appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Thomas was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.
Judge Thomas gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"January 1987 - September 1987: Law Offices of Kenneth W. Thornton, Georgetown, S.C. Associate working in family and circuit court matters;
September 1987 - August 1988: Rubillo & Thomas, Georgetown, S.C. Partner/family and circuit court matters;
August 1988 - January 1993: Law Office of Paula H. Thomas, Pawleys Island, S.C. Sole practitioner working in family and circuit court matters;
January 1993 - January 1994: Thomas & Gundling, Pawleys Island, S.C. Partner working in family and circuit court matters;
January 1994 - May 1994: Lawimore, Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher, PA, Pawleys Island, S.C. Partner, family and circuit court;
May 1994 - January 1995: Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher, Pawleys Island, S.C. Partner, family and circuit court;
January 1995- July 1996: Law Office of Paula H. Thomas, Pawleys Island, S.C. Sole practitioner, family and circuit court."
Judge Thomas reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   Appeared twice;

(b)   state:     Appeared in family court and average of once           per week, appeared in circuit court an average           of once per month."
Judge Thomas reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     45%;

(b)   criminal:   15%;

(c)   domestic:   40%."
Judge Thomas reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     2%;

(b)   non-jury:   98%."
Judge Thomas provided that prior to election to the bench she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Thomas' account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Harry F. Cameron v. Georgetown Steel. Workers' Compensation Claim regarding novel question dealing with the 'coming and going rule.' Case # WWC 9357660;

(b)   Paula Wilson, et al. v. Patricia Brown, a/k/a Patricia Brown Nance. Issue of whether a deceased individual was competent at the time of marriage and the children's standing to sue. Case # 95-DR-22-156;

(c)   State of South Carolina v. Marshall Beam. First case in the 15th Circuit in which an individual was charged under the Criminal Negligence statute in South Carolina. Case # 93-GS-26-2153;

(d)   State v. Robert Prince. Addressed numerous search and seizure issues. Case # 87-GS-22- .;

(e)   Swails v. Revco. Establishing damages for administering wrong medication. Case # 95-CP-22-260."
The following is Judge Thomas' account of a civil appeal she has personally handled:

"(a)   Myra Jean Merritt v. Carl A. Merritt, Jr., Docket 3-95-610. (Co-counsel)."
Regarding prior judicial positions held, Judge Thomas reported:
"Elected May 22, 1996, S.C. Circuit Court, At-Large Seat #1 (un-expired term); Re-elected in May of 1997; Elected May 23, 1998, S.C. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit, Seat #1."
Judge Thomas provided the following list of her significant orders:

"(a)   State of S.C. v. Bryant, 2000-GS-26-3326, Death Penalty case, Supreme Court Opinion;

(b)   Farm Bureau v. Chandler, 95-CP-45-142; S.C. Appeals Court & Supreme Court rulings;

(c)   Richmond v. FGH, Inc., et al., 98-CP-22-199, Order Amending Judgment;

(d)   Cole v. Frie, Unpublished Opinion No. 2002-UP-472;

(e)   Henson v. International Paper Co., Wrongful Death, S.C. Appeals Court Opinion # 3745."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Thomas' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Thomas "is qualified for election to the position of Judge of the Court of Appeals, Seat 2. As a result of its current investigation and previous interview with Judge Thomas, the Committee recommends this candidate without reservation."
Judge Thomas is married to Don Stanely Thomas. She has three children.
Judge Thomas reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar Association;

(b)   S.C. Circuit Judges Association."
Judge Thomas provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Cities of Character, Georgetown, S.C. Advisory Board member;

(b)   St. Paul's Waccamaw United Methodist Church."
Judge Thomas further provided:
"(a)   I sat as an Acting Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals for the month of April of 2002;
(b)   My experience as a Circuit Court Judge has involved a large variety of cases that will be brought up to the Court of Appeals;
(c)   My experience as a Legislator gave me the insight of the law making process;
(d)   I recently sat as a special appointment to the Supreme Court."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission noted Judge Thomas' dedicated service to the state, first as a representative to the House and then as a Circuit Court Judge. They were impressed with her open-mind as a jurist and her thoughtful responses during the screening. The Commission found Judge Paula H. Thomas qualified and nominated her for election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Williams meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Williams was born on March 13, 1956. He is 48 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Williams provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Williams.
Judge Williams 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 Williams reported that he has made $157.76 in campaign expenditures for stationery, $33.76; for typing, $50.00; and for postage, $74.00.
Judge Williams 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 Williams testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Williams described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Current Issues in Family Law; sponsored by National Judicial College; 24 hours, February 2002
(b)   Organized and participated in School for New Family Court Judges; July 2002
(c)   I have attended numerous CLEs and exceeded JCLE requirements
(d)   I have attended several Drug Court Conventions and attended numerous education courses relating to Drug Courts.
01/09/98   Seminar of Circuit & Family Court Judges for             Administrative Purposes;
03/05/98   Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;
05/21/98   Family Court Judges' Conference;
01/23/98   Family Law Midyear Meeting;
08/13/98   SC Trial Lawyers - 1998 Annual Convention;
08/20/98   Judicial Conference;
11/06/98   1998 Family Court Bench Bar;
05/19/99   Family Court Judges Conference;
06/28/99   Family & Circuit Court Judges Orientation School;
08/05/99   1999 Annual Convention;
08/19/99   Judicial Conference;
12/03/99   Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar;
01/21/00   Family Law Section;
08/16/00   Annual Judicial Conference;
05/03/00   Family Court Judges Conference;
08/03/00   Trial Lawyers Convention;
12/01/00   Family Law Bench/Bar;
01/26/01   Family Law Section;
05/03/01   Family Court Judges Conference;
07/31/01   Judicial Ethics Workshop;
08/23/01   Judicial Conference;
09/22/01   Wofford Alumni Attorneys;
12/07/01   Family Court Bench/Bar;
01/25/02   Family Law Section II - Taxes;
02/24/02   Current Issues in the Family Court;
04/19/02   Cool Tips;
05/01/02   Family Court Judges Conference;
07/08/02   2002 Orientation School for New Judges;
08/01/02   Trial Lawyers;
08/22/02   Judicial Conference;
12/06/02   Family Court JCLE;
01/24/03   Family Law - Part II;
04/30/03   Family Court Judges Conference;
08/07/03   Annual Convention;
08/21/03   Judicial Conference;
09/28/03   Solicitor's Association;
12/05/03   Family Law."
Judge Williams reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   I have lectured at the required South Carolina Bar sponsored 'Bridge the Gap' Program for new lawyers for the last several years;
(b)   I have lectured to USC Law classes about abuse and neglect cases. I have spoken to USC Law classes about Juvenile Drug Court as a sentencing alternative;
(c)   I have lectured to the Richland Bar 'Lunch and Learn' Program about abuse and neglect matters in Family Court;
(d)   In January 2004 I spoke at the Family Law Seminar at the S.C. Bar meeting."
Judge Williams reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Williams did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Williams did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Williams has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Williams was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Williams reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Williams appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Williams appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Williams was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.
Judge Williams provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"1982 - 1995   General practice of law with primary emphasis on               family law and personal injury law.

Scott, Mathews and Williams, 1982 - 1991;

Trotter and Williams, 1991 - 1995;

1991 - 1995     Part-time Municipal Judge for Irmo, South Carolina;

1995 - present   South Carolina Family Court Judge."
Judge Williams reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   federal:   low;

(b)   state:     high."
Judge Williams reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   civil:     30%;

(b)   criminal:   5%;

(c)   domestic:   65%."
Judge Williams reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the bench as follows:

"(a)   jury:     5%;

(b)   non-jury:   95%."
Judge Williams reported that prior to election to the bench he most often served as sole counsel.
Judge Williams provided the following list of his most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Melvin v. Melvin. Long-term marriage involving issues of contested divorce and equitable distribution including military retirement;

(b)   Inman v. Inman. A custody case involving a mother who moved out of state. The mother retained custody, but she had to return to South Carolina;

(c)   Oswald v. Oswald. A contested domestic action involving child support, visitation, equitable distribution and attorney fees. The case is significant in that it involved most issues in private domestic actions;

(d)   Jackson v. Jackson. A domestic case tried for the mother, seeking custody and visitation, who had in prior years given up custody and visitation with her children. Custody was obtained for the mother;

(e)   Bullard v. Ehrhardt, 324 S.E.2d 61, 283 S.C. 557 (1984). This case established duty of store owner to invitees for the criminal actions of third parties in negligence actions."

The following is Judge Williams' account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Marvin E. Davis v. Bernice H. Davis;

(b)   Oyler v. Oyler, 358 S.E.2d 170, 293 S.C. 4 (S.C. App. 1987). Participation in this appeal limited to responsibility for oral argument and assisting in writing brief;

(c)   Bullard v. Ehrhardt, 324 S.E.2d 61, 283 S.C. 557 (1984);

(d)   Frances June Rawl v. Roy Edwin Rawl, Sr., participation limited to oral argument."
Judge Williams provided the following list of his most significant orders:
"(a)   Bates v. Bates, Opinion 97-UP-247. Court of Appeals affirmed post-divorce modification of alimony;
(b)   Ellis v. Commander, 96-DR-40-1708. Case involved medical treatment for baby when parents object to treatment;
(c)   Jones v. Jones, 96-DR-40-2069. Divorce action with issues involving visitation and equitable distribution;
(d)   Cheung v. Beck, 95-DR-40-1958. Custody case;
(e)   Hooper v. Rockwell, et al., 573 S.E.2d 358, 334 S.C. 281 (1999). Case involved termination of parental rights and adoption."
Judge Williams provided the following relating to prior judicial positions:
"(a)   Assistant Town Judge, Irmo, S.C., October 1991-June 6, 1995; appointed by Town Council; jurisdiction limited to Magistrate level, criminal and traffic offenses;
(b)   S.C. Family Court Judge, Richland County, Seat #1; June 1995-present; elected by Legislature; jurisdiction includes, but is not limited to, divorce, adoption, abuse and neglect and juvenile matters as set forth by statute. I have presided over the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court since inception in 1998.
(c)   S.C. Court of Appeals, Appointed as an Acting Judge in case of Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., et al.
(d)   I have been appointed as a Circuit Judge to preside over Adult Drug Court."
Judge Williams provided the following concerning unsuccessful candidacies for judicial office:
"In 1994 I was a candidate for the Family Court. I was found qualified by the S.C. Bar and Joint Commission for Judicial Screening. I withdrew prior to the election. In 2003 I was found qualified by the S.C. Bar and I was qualified and nominated by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission for the Court of Appeals."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Williams' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Williams was a qualified and highly-regarded judge who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Williams is married to Sharon Childers Williams. He has two children.
Judge Williams reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   S.C. Bar, 1982-present;
(b)   Richland County Bar, 1982-present; Family Law Chairman, 1993; Family Law Committee, 1991-1993;
(c)   S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges, 1995-present; Secretary-Treasurer, 1997-1998; President Elect, 1998-1999; President, 1999-2000; Chairman of Advisory Committee, 2001-present;
(d)   S.C. Association of Drug Court Professionals; President, 2000-2001."
Judge Williams provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Received 'Program Achievement Award' at 1998 Governor's Conference on Youth Crime for initiating and developing the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court;

(b)   Columbia Kiwanis Club, President, 1989; 1990; Board of Directors, 1987-1991 and 1994-1995; Key Club Keywanettes, Advisor, 1983-1996;

(c)   Summit Club;

(d)   The Country Club-WildeWood and Woodcreek Farms; member of Golf & Greens Committees;

(e)   Tarantella."

Judge Williams additionally reported:

"I assisted in design and implementation of the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court Program, a comprehensive drug treatment court for offenders with serious drug problems.
I am gratified and appreciative of ratings I received from members of the Bar in the anonymous surveys since serving on the bench. I will continue to make efforts to improve in hopes of better serving the people of South Carolina. I believe my 13 years of experience as a practicing lawyer along with 8 years as a Family Court Judge give me a broad range of experience to handle the issues presented to the Court of Appeals."
Summary of Commission's Findings:
The Commission was favorably impressed with Judge Williams' balanced judicial temperament, intellect, and integrity. They recognized his dedication in advising the legislature on family law issues as well as serving as a judge for drug court. The Commission found Judge H. Bruce Williams to be qualified and nominated him for service on the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:

The Honorable Mary E. Buchan       Court of Appeals, Seat 1

The Honorable L. Casey Manning       Court of Appeals, Seat 1

The Honorable Paul E. Short, Jr.       Court of Appeals, Seat 1

The Honorable Daniel F. Pieper       Court of Appeals, Seat 2

The Honorable Paula H. Thomas       Court of Appeals, Seat 2

The Honorable H. Bruce Williams     Court of Appeals, Seat 2

At 11:10 A.M., on motion of Senator GIESE, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 12:00 Noon.

This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 3:36 P.M.