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 LOURIE.

TO:       The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM:   Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
DATE:     January 13, 2005

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

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

Date Draft Report Issued:   Thursday, January 13, 2005
Date and Time Final Report Issued:   12:00 noon on Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, January 18, 2005 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 that 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 (lawyers, teachers, businessmen, bankers, 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

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

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 court rooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision.

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

The Commission also expresses its thanks to Judicial Fellows Elizabeth J. James and Andrew MacLeod for their assistance with the Fall 2004 screening.

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

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

Judge Dennis was born on November 11, 1948. He is 56 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Dennis provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

Judge Dennis 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 Dennis reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

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

Judge Dennis described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

For the preceding ten years I have averaged at least 25 hours of continuing legal and/or judicial education."

Judge Dennis reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   Panel member for 'Ethics for Arbitrators and Mediators' sponsored by the South Carolina Bar;
(b)   Taught the Prosecution Clinic at USC School of Law for several semesters;
(c)   Taught Criminal Procedure at the USC College of Criminal Justice;
(d)   Taught Business Law at Columbia Junior College."

Judge Dennis reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

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

Judge Dennis reported the following regarding his military service:
"I served as a Cadet at the United States Coast Guard Academy from June 1967-October 1967 and was Honorably Discharged."

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

Judge Dennis appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Dennis was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975.

Judge Dennis provided the following regarding his work history since law school:
"1975-1978:
Assistant Solicitor Fifth Judicial Circuit
Prosecuted and prepared criminal cases.
1979-1980:
Associate with Holler, Gregory and McKellar
General practice of law including trials in all courts.
1981-1990:
Partner, Holler, Dennis & Olive
General Practice of Law.
1990-Present:
Part-time Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia.
1990-1995:
Sole Practitioner - Law Offices of Steven D. Dennis
General Practice of Law.
1996-Present:
Partner, Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond, Plante & Garner
General Practice of Law.
2004-Present:
Chief Administrative Judge for City of Columbia Municipal Court."

Judge Dennis reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   20 times;
(b)   State:     250 times."

Judge Dennis reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     40%;

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

Judge Dennis provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Dennis' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   United States v. Egbert Richardson, 939 F.2d 135 (4th Cir. 1991).

This appeal limits the Government's ability to include relevant conduct of subsequent acts to the weight of drugs to be included at sentencing.
(b)   State v. Ballard. Criminal sexual conduct trial in December 2001 in Richland County General Sessions Court.
(c)   United States v. Gladys Vasquez Alvarez. Drug conspiracy and money laundering trial in U.S. District Court; very complex, lengthy trial.
(d)   State v. Danny Lail. Defended multiple murderer and through legal research convinced the state that the death penalty could not legally be applied.
(e)   State v. Michael Robinson. By use of eye witness identification experts saved Mr. Robinson from a conviction on a charge of armed robbery."

The following is Judge Dennis' account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Davie v. Atkinson, 313 S.E.2d 648 (1984).
(b)   Davie v. Atkinson, 352 S.E.2d 517 (1987).

This case went up on appeal twice in a dispute over hundreds of acres of land that had been taken by fraud in 1921; obviously, issues such as the statute of limitations and the 'dead man' statute were significant to this case."

Regarding prior judicial positions, Judge Dennis reported the following: "Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia 1990-Present, Chief Administrative Judge, July 1, 2004, to present; appointed by Columbia City Council. Misdemeanor criminal jurisdiction up to $500.00 and/or 30 days (with minor exceptions)."

Judge Dennis reported that he was an unsuccessful candidate for a Family Court seat in 1994 and for a Circuit Court seat in 2002.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Dennis was a qualified candidate. The committee approved of his candidacy for the Family Court bench.

Judge Dennis is not married. He has two children from a prior marriage.

Judge Dennis reported that he was a member of the following b ar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar 1975;
(b)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;
(c)   National Judges Association."

The Commission noted that Judge Dennis' long tenure as a municipal court judge would aid his service on the Family Court bench. As an assistant solicitor and private practitioner, Mr. Dennis has 29 years of experience in prosecuting criminal cases and representing civil, criminal, and domestic clients. They commented that he appears to look at all sides of the issues before him. The Commission found him to be qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court.

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

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

Mr. Elliott was born on October 1, 1952 . He is 52 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Elliott provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1981.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Elliott testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. Elliott described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"1999:   SCTLA Annual Convention (08/05/1999);
2000:     SCTLA Annual Convention (08/03/2000);

Pitfalls for Family Law (12/29/2000);

Pitfalls for Criminal Law (12/29/2000);
2001:     SCTLA Annual Convention (08/02/2001);

USCSL Reunion (11/9/2001);
2002:     SCTLA Annual Convention (08/01/2002);
2003:     SCTLA Annual Convention (08/07/2003);
2004:     Annual Trial Lawyers Convention;
I will attend other seminars in the month of December."

Regarding law-related courses that he has taught, Mr. Elliott reported: "I have taught Criminal Justice at Midlands Technical College during three semesters in 2002 and 2003."

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

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Elliott was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Elliott reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Mr. Elliott described his military service as follows:
"I served in the United States Army from August of 1972--August of 1975. I attained the rank of E-5. I was Honorably Discharged."
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Mr. Elliott appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Elliott was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1981.

Mr. Elliott provided the following work history since graduation from law school:
"November 1981 - March 1985:
The Elliott Law Firm
General practice to include domestic litigation, tort, criminal and property.
March 1985 - present:
Law offices of Stevens B. Elliott
General practice to include domestic litigation, tort, criminal and property.
1981 - present:

Mr. Elliott reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   seldom;
(b)   State:     Almost weekly."

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

Mr. Elliott reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:     35%;
(b)   Non-jury:   65%."

Mr. Elliott reported that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Elliott's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Rutherford v. Rutherford, 307 S.C. 199, 414 S.E.2d 157 (1992).

My client was seeking a divorce on the ground of adultery. His wife had an expert testify that she had multiple personality disorder with 22 personalities. He maintained that one of her alternate personalities committed the adultery. The trial court held there was no adultery. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the wife had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of her committing the physical act of adultery, she would have to show her inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct. This case had nationwide exposure.
(b)   Gris McDonald and White Oak Properties, Inc. v. Shirley Griffin, et al. Still pending in the Court of Appeals.

On a breach of contract action on the sale of a house, the jury basically rescinded the contract requiring the seller to

Names withheld due to confidentiality.
(c)   __________ v. S.C. Department of Mental Health.

This was a worker's compensation case resulting from injuries to a nurse having been attacked by a mental health patient. Such employees are entitled to administrative leave with full pay. The length of time my client drew pay under this provision caused the implementation of a new policy regarding the length of time an individual could remain on that status.
(d)   _____________ v. _______________.

My client revealed to her husband that their two-year-old child was not his, and she sought relief through the Family Court with regard to custody and a change in paternity. The significance of this case was that her husband sought full custody although he was not the biological father. This case made me aware of the important factors of bonds and relationships of non-biological parents with children. The mother of the child now has custody with the ex-husband's contact slowly diminishing.
(e)   State v. _____________.

As a young lawyer, I was appointed from the Public Defenders conflict list to represent a young man charged with criminal sexual conduct, 1st degree. He denied guilt, along with two co-defendants, although significant evidence was against him. Though offered a CSC 2d plea with the possibility of a minimum sentence, he chose to try the case. After several days of trial, and after his two co-defendants pled guilty during trial, he informed me that he wanted to plead guilty. CSC 2d was no longer available and he pled to

The following is Mr. Elliott's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Rutherford v. Rutherford, 307 S.C. 199, 414 S.E.2d 157 (1992);
(b)   Gris McDonald and White Oak Properties, Inc. v. Shirley Griffin, et al. Pending in Court of Appeals."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Elliott to be a qualified candidate. The committee approved of his candidacy for the Family Court bench.

Mr. Elliott is married to Pamela Willis Elliott. He has three children.

Mr. Elliott reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   The South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   The South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;
(c)   Richland County Bar."

Mr. Elliott provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Trenholm Park Athletic Association;
(b)   Columbia Country Club;
(c)   Fort Jackson Golf Club."

Mr. Elliott provided the following additional information:

"I have been happily married for 32 years. My wife and I have raised three successful children and I have been active in youth baseball as a coach from 1971 until 1998. That experience, coupled with my representing indigent juveniles before the South Carolina Juvenile Parole Board for 22 years, gives me a keen insight relating to children's issues. This is a definite asset in making decisions in child custody, visitation, and termination of parental rights/adoption matters coming before one on the Family Court bench. Also, this experience

The Commission noted Mr. Elliott's extensive and dedicated work representing indigent juveniles. They found Mr. Elliott's calm and unassuming demeanor has served him well as a family law practitioner. The Commission found Mr. Elliott to be qualified for election to the Family Court.

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

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

Judge Epting was born on January 2, 1942. He is 62 years old and a resident of Irmo, South Carolina. Judge Epting provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Judge Epting reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

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

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

Judge Epting described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Legal:
S.C. Trial Lawyers Auto Seminar in Atlanta (2002 and 2003);
Elder Law Training (2003);
Predatory Lending (2002);
Real Estate Law seminars (2003);
S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention (2004).
(b)   Judicial:
ABA National Conference Specialized Court Judges-Traffic Court Technology;
Summary Court Judge annual convention and seminars (2002);
Judges and Attorneys Seminar on Substance Abuse (2003);
Annual Criminal Law Update (2003);
National Judicial College course on opinion writing and logic.
1999 :     ABA Annual Review of Supreme Court Decisions-Criminal;

ABA Traffic Court Technology Program;

National Judicial College, Opinion Writing Course;

National Judicial College, Logic for Judges;

S.C. Trial Lawyers, Auto Torts XXII.
2000:     ABA Traffic Court Seminar;

Suggs & Kelly How to Prove Liability;

SCCR Family Mediation Training.
2001:     MUSC S.C. Bar 2001.
2002:     S.C. Summary Court Judges Association, Summary Court Judge Classes;

SCTLA Auto Torts.
2003:     SCLSA Elder Law Training;

First American Title Annual Agents Real Estate;

MUSC Judges & Attorneys Substance Abuse & Ethics;

SCLTA Auto Torts XXVI.

Judge Epting reported that he had taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   Chaired a S.C. Bar CLE on regulated industries focusing primarily on practice before the public service commission;
(b)   Presided over mock trial demonstrating trial procedure and evidentiary matters for criminal justice academy continuing education seminar for magistrates."

Judge Epting reported that he had not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Epting was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Epting reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was " BV."

Judge Epting provided the following information concerning his military service:
"United States Army, 1964-69, First Lieutenant, Honorable Discharge."
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Judge Epting was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.

Judge Epting provided the following information concerning his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Legal: General Practice - the early years included practice with the firm of Berry, Lightsey, Gibbes & Bowers in Columbia. The firm was composed of some senior experienced attorneys who provided a good foundation in the practice of law.

From 1973 to 1998 in sole practice.

Since 1998 in partnership with my son operating under the name Epting Law Firm, LLC.

My practice includes business law with focus on regulated industries, estate/probate, real property and general litigation. I have appeared and represented clients before several agencies and commissions including the South Carolina Public Service Commission, S.C. Pharmacy Board, South Carolina Department of Revenue, and South Carolina Contractors Licensing Board. I have tried cases in most South Carolina courts including appellate courts, circuit courts, master-in-equity, probate court, family courts, and summary courts."

Judge Epting reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   I appear in Federal District court once a year. Additionally, I have prior experience before Federal Administrative Law judges on social security matters.
(b)   State:   I appear in state courts 25 to 30 times per year for motions hearings, trials, and appellant arguments."

Judge Epting reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     90%;
(b)   Criminal:   5%;
(c)   Domestic:   5%."

Judge Epting reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:     50%;
(b)   Non-jury:   50%."

Judge Epting provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Epting's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Epting v. Devane. Common Pleas case involving a wrongful death action in a boating accident on Lake Murray. The case involved a difficult legal and factual issue dealing with the Statute of Limitation and the definition of navigable waters. We were successful in determining that the lake was non-navigable for jurisdiction purposes and ultimately achieved a favorable result for the client.
(b)   Bland v. . Common Pleas. I, along with co-counsel, represented Mrs. Bland in a case in which she received severe burns throughout her body as a result of a water heater that exploded due to faulty installation. A favorable result for our client was reached in the case, and similar products that had been installed in the State of South Carolina were correctly reinstalled as a result of the litigation.
(c)   Cooke v. . U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. I, along with co-counsel, litigated this case on behalf of the Estate of Jimmy Cooke. Mr. Cooke drowned in Lake Murray when the boat seat installed on his boat failed. This was a product liability case that focused on flaws on the manufacturing process of the seats. The case was settled on the eve of trial with a favorable result to the client. Ultimately the case revealed a flaw in the manufacturing process that was easily corrected for future consumers.
(d)   Lucas v. Rawl. Lexington County, Common Pleas. I represented Franklin Lucas after surface water from cleared land of an upper landowner damaged his property and caused tremendous financial damage to his agricultural operation and pond on his property. A Lexington County jury awarded our client a substantial monetary verdict. The South Carolina Supreme Court ultimately upheld that verdict and strengthened the legal principle that a nuisance cause of action is viable as an exception to the common enemy rule in the State of South Carolina.
(e)   South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, intervener, SCE&G rate-hike case (2003). Public

The following is Judge Epting's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Epting v. Brumble, 264 S.C. 114, 212 S.E.2d 711 (1975);
(b)   Thomas v. Gathings, 304 SC 308, 403 S.E.2d 682 (1991);
(c)   Timmons v. Timmons, 2002 UP 608 (S.C. Ct. App. filed October 2, 2002);
(d)   Lucas v. Rawl Family Ltd. Partnership, Op. No 2003-UP-62 (S.C. Ct. App. filed January 22, 2003);
(e)   Lucas v. Rawl Family Ltd Partnership, 359 S.C. 505, 598 S.E.2d 712 (May, 2004)."

Judge Epting provided the following information concerning his judicial experience:
"Town of Chapin (1986-1997); Appointed Chief Judge Town of Irmo (1989-present). Court has criminal jurisdiction - trial jurisdiction mostly for crimes involving sentences up to 30 days and fines with costs of $1,087.00; however, court now has jurisdiction for such crimes as DUS 2nd and above involving much larger fines and longer sentences. Jurisdiction also includes bond settings; conducting preliminary hearings and conducting roster meetings and jury trials."

Judge Epting reported that while serving as a municipal judge he was able to continue his law practice.

Judge Epting reported the following information concerning unsuccessful candidacies:
"In 1980, I ran unsuccessfully for school board in Richland, Lexington District Five. Also in the early 1980's, I ran unsuccessfully for Richland County Council. In 2000, I offered myself as a candidate for Circuit Court Judge in the Fifth Judicial Circuit and was unsuccessful."

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Epting to be a qualified and highly regarded candidate. The committee approved of his candidacy for the Administrative Law Court.

Judge Epting is married to Nancy G. Epting. He has two children.

Judge Epting reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Summary Court Judges Association;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   Richland and Lexington County Bar Associations;
(d)   South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association;
(e)   American Bar Association;
(f)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association."

Judge Epting provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Lake Murray - Irmo Rotary Club;
(b)   Irmo Chamber of Commerce;
(c)   Senior Resources, Board Member."

Judge Epting provided the following additional information:
"We have been pioneers in utilizing video teleconferencing for bond hearings and guilty pleas. In addition, we have utilized new and innovative techniques for providing courtroom security and controlled access to our judicial center."

The Commission found Judge Epting to be an upstanding person and noted that he has a favorable reputation among the local bar. They also noted that Judge Epting comes with an extensive background in many areas of the law during his 35 years of practice, which would serve him well on the bench. The Commission found Judge Epting to be qualified and nominated him for election to the Administrative Law Court.

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

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

Judge Geathers was born on April 10, 1961. He is 43 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Geathers provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986. Judge Geathers has also been licensed to practice law in the state of North Carolina since 1994.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Judge Geathers reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

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

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

Judge Geathers described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2000:   Ethics for Family Law Practice;
21 Ways to Avoid Malpractice;
Ethics, Productivity and Stress Management; Local Government Attorney's Institute;
Nuts and Bolts for In-House State Lawyers.
2001:     7th Annual Ethics Seminar;
A Day in Discovery;
Tips From the Bench II.
2002:     Masters in Trial;
Tips From the Bench III.
2003:     The CON Contested Case;
Writing Credits:
'The Matter Does Not Appear to Me Now As It Appears To Have Appeared To Me Then', 15-NOV S.C. Law. 27;
'An Inglorious Fiction': The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South 18 Wis. Women's L.J. 233."

Judge Geathers reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   Lectured at CLE: The CON Contested Case: An ALJ and Bar Perspective, May 2, 2003;
(b)   Lectured for S.C. Environmental Law Class, USC Law School, Jan. 28, 2003 and Jan. 16, 2004."

Judge Geathers reported that he has published the following:
"(a)   John D. Geathers, 'The Matter Does Not Appear to Me Now as It Appears to Have Appeared to Me Then': Motions for Reconsideration Before the ALJ Division, S.C. LAW., Nov. 2002, at 27.
(b)   John D. Geathers and Justin R. Werner, 'An Inglorious Fiction': The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South Carolina, 18 WIS. WOMEN'S L.J. 233 (2003).
(c)   John D. Geathers and Justin Werner, 'An Inglorious Fiction': The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South Carolina, S.C. TRIAL LAW. BULL., Fall 2003, at 14 ( Adaptation from article cited above).
(d)   Under contract with S.C. Bar to coauthor Treatise on S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Laws."

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Geathers was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Geathers reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Judge Geathers appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Geathers was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.

Judge Geathers reported the following concerning his employment since law school:
"I was employed for approximately eight months as the OSHA attorney for the South Carolina Department of Labor upon graduation from law in 1986.

I resigned from the Department to accept employment with the Office of Senate Research of the South Carolina Senate, where I became Senior Staff Counsel. Upon being elected to the ALJD, I subsequently resigned from employment with the Senate."

Judge Geathers reported the following regarding prior judicial positions: "I have served as an ALJ since 1995. Pursuant to Section 1-23-600, an ALJ is authorized to preside over all hearings of contested cases involving the departments of the executive branch of government in which a single hearing

The ALC has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of the Department of Corrections. This jurisdiction is derived entirely from the decision of the S.C. Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C.354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). In Furtick v. S.C. Dep't of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, ___ S.C. ___, 576 S.E.2d 146 (2003), the Supreme Court decided that the ALC has jurisdiction to hear final decision from the Department dealing with the permanent denial of parole eligibility. Finally, The ALC has jurisdiction to conduct de novo hearings in cases involving final decisions under the Retirement Systems Procedure Act, Section 9-21-60."

Judge Geathers reported that his five most significant opinions are as follows:
"(a)   Marlboro Park Hosp. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, Nos. 98-ALJ-07-0734-CC & 98-ALJ-07-0735-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. July 27, 2000), aff'd, 358 S.C. 573, 595 S.E.2d 851 (Ct. App. 2004);
(b)   The Cardinal Companies, L.P., v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, No. 00-ALJ-07-0527-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. Oct. 10, 2000);
(c)   Central Midlands Council of Governments v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control and Lexington County Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, No. 01-ALJ-07-0363-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. Oct. 22, 2002);
(d)   U.S. Airways, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, No. 03-ALJ-17-0395-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Court, Jan. 30, 2004);
(e)   Macalloy Corporation v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, No. 01-ALJ-07-0099-CC (S.C. Admin. Law judge Div. Oct. 30, 2001)."

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Geathers to be a qualified and highly regarded judge. The committee wholeheartedly approved of his re-election to the Administrative Law Court.

Judge Geathers is married to Doris W. Geathers. He has two children.

Judge Geathers reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   N.C. Bar Association."

The Commission found Judge Geathers to be qualified for continued service and nominated him for re-election to the Administrative Law Court.

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

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

Judge Goldsmith was born on January 7, 1942. He is 62 years old and a resident of Lancaster, South Carolina. Judge Goldsmith provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969. Judge Goldsmith has also been licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia since 1970.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

Judge Goldsmith demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte

Judge Goldsmith reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

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

Judge Goldsmith testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Judge Goldsmith described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"06/28/99   New Family Court Judges Seminar;
09/24/99   Hot Tips Seminar;
12/03/99   S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar;
07/10/00   2000 Orientation School for New Family Court Judges;
09/15/00   Hot Tips Seminar;
09/19/00   Ethics Seminar;
12/01/00   S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar;
05/03/01   2001 Family Court Judges;
07/02/01   2001 Orientation School For New Family Court Judges;
07/02/01   2001 Orientation School for New Circuit Court Judges;
08/23/01   S.C. Judicial Conference;
01/25/02   Taxes: The Impact on Family Law;
05/01/02   Family Court Judges Conference;
08/01/02   2002 Annual Convention;
08/22/02   S.C. Judicial Conference;
12/06/02   Family Court Bench/Bar;

Judge Goldsmith reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:
"Prior to becoming a Family Court judge, I was a lecturer at the Hot Tips Seminars sponsored by the S.C. Bar for approximately ten years and spoke at the New Family Court Judges Orientation School for approximately five years. Since becoming a Family Court judge, I lectured at the S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar on December 5, 2003."

Judge Goldsmith reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Goldsmith was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Judge Goldsmith reported that his last available rating by Martindale-Hubbell was "AV."

Judge Goldsmith reported the following information regarding his military service:
"I served in the United States Army from 1964 to 1966. I received an Honorable Discharge as First Lieutenant."

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

Judge Goldsmith appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Judge Goldsmith was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.

Judge Goldsmith reported the following concerning his work experience following law school:
"I was a member of the law firm of Sutherland, Asbil & Brennan in Atlanta, Georgia from 1969 to 1971.

I was a partner in the law firm of Williams, Rushing & Goldsmith from 1971 to 1972.

I was a partner in the law firm of Rushing & Goldsmith from approximately 1972 to 1975.

I was a partner in the law firm of Thomas, Rushing, Goldsmith & Folks.

I was a partner in the law firm of Thomas, Goldsmith, Folks & Hodges.

I was a partner in the law firm of Goldsmith, Folks & Hodges.

I was a partner in the law firm of Goldsmith, Folks, Khoury & DeVenny.

I was a sole proprietor in the law firm of Brooks P. Goldsmith from 1991 to 2001.

I have been a Family Court judge for the Sixth Judicial Circuit from 2001 to present.

I was engaged in general practice until the mid 1980s when I began specializing in family law, primarily divorce, division of property, child custody, adoption, as well as abuse and neglect cases. I have handled a number of appeals to the Supreme Court and the South Carolina Court of Appeals."

Judge Goldsmith reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years prior to election to the Family Court bench as follows:
"(a)   federal:   none;

Judge Goldsmith reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to election to the Family Court bench as follows:
"(a)   civil:     14%;
(b)   criminal:   1%;
(c)   domestic:   84%."

Judge Goldsmith reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years prior to election to the Family Court bench as follows:
"(a)   jury:     1%;
(b)   non-jury:   99%."

Judge Goldsmith reported that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Goldsmith's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Lee, et al. v. SCDNR, 339 S.C. 463 (2000). In a 3-2 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the trial judge and held that the Department of Natural Resources did have the authority to prohibit the hunting of deer and turkey on Sundays in certain parts of the State.
(b)   Huggins, et al. v. Lancaster County DSS, et al., Family Court of Lancaster County (Case No. 94-DR-29-703), Order dated January 11, 1996. I represented the Plaintiffs who were successful in a transracial adoption case. The mother and father of the minor child did not appear during the trial of the case. The child had a fraternal twin and an older half brother. The child's maternal grandmother was a party. The minor child was born premature and tested positive for cocaine at the time of her birth. The Department of Social Services, nevertheless, contested the adoption. The Plaintiffs and the minor child were not of the same race. An expert testified on behalf of the Plaintiffs that children of transracial adoptions fare no better or worse than do children who are adopted by parties of the same race.
(c)   Ellerbe v. Ellerbe, 473 S.E.2d 881 (1996). In this case, my client was successful in having the trial judge reversed on virtually every issue in the case except for the grounds for divorce. The Court of Appeals held that it was error for the

The following is Judge Goldsmith's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Ellerbe v. Ellerbe, 473 S.E.2d 881 (1996).
(b)   Hinson v. Hinson, Ct. App. Opinion No. 3212, filed July 10, 2000.
(c)   Edwards v. Edwards, Ct. App. Opinion No. 2000-UP-174, filed March 7, 2000.
(d)   Blackmon v. Blackmon, Ct. App. Opinion No. 2000-UP-233, filed March 22, 2000.
(e)   Hodge v. Hodge, 305 S.C. 521, 409 S.E.2d 436 (Ct. App. 1991).
(f)   Skipper v. Skipper, 290 S.C. 412, 351 S.E.2d 153 (1986)."

Judge Goldsmith provided the following list of his significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Dorothy J. Mabe v. Larry Mabe, Case No. 2000-DR-46-1068, Order dated March 28, 2003. This case involved

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

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Goldsmith was "eminently qualified for the position he is seeking."

Judge Goldsmith is married to Laura Porter Goldsmith. He has one child.

Judge Goldsmith provided the following additional information to the Commission:
"I am primarily the judge that presides over the Lancaster County Juvenile Drug Court."

The Commission found Judge Goldsmith to be a well-respected Family Court jurist. They also noted that Judge Goldsmith would transition well to the Circuit Court as a result of his extensive experience as an attorney in the general practice of law. The Commission found him to be qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Hagler meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge on the Administrative Law Court.

Ms. Hagler was born on August 21, 1960. She is 44 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Hagler provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.

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

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

Ms. Hagler reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

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

Ms. Hagler testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Hagler described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Annual S.C. Public Defender Conferences (past 10 years);
(b)   S.C. Association Of Counties (past two years);
(c)   2003 S.C. Public Defender Association Conference;
(d)   2002 S.C. Public Defender Association Conference;
(e)   2001 S.C. Public Defender Association Conference;
(f)   2000 S.C. Public Defender Association Conference;
(g)   1999 S.C. Public Defender Association Conference."

Ms. Hagler reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   Lectured 1996 SCPD Conference;
(b)   Speaking Oct. 22, 2004 Black Lawyers Summit and Retreat."

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

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Hagler was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Hagler reported that she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Ms. Hagler appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Hagler was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.

Ms Hagler described her work experience following her law school graduation as follows:
"1985-Present:
Criminal S.C. Office of Appellate Defense
Appellate Practice."

Ms. Hagler reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   None;
(b)   State:     Appellate (State Supreme Ct. & Ct. of App.) 40 times."

Ms. Hagler reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last fi ve years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     0%;
(b)   Criminal:   100%;
(c)   Domestic:   0%."

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

Ms. Hagler provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

Ms. Hager provided the following information concerning her court appearances in the past:
"I have practiced as an appellate defender at the S.C. Office of Appellate Defense for the past nineteen years. Although my areas of practice do not include appearances before the Administrative Law Court, my practice before the state appellate courts would provide me with the experience necessary to serve on this court. For example, the Administrative Law Court handles appeals from SCDC inmates who have non-collateral prison and parole issues per the Supreme Court's holdings in Al-Shabazz and Furtick. Previously, I and the staff at Appellate Defense handled all of those appeals. Also, the Administrative Law Court applies the S.C. Appellate Court Rules when it sits as an appellate tribunal handling appeals from final agency decisions. As an appellate attorney, I am very familiar with the appellate court rules as this is my area of practice. Additionally, the rules of evidence apply in administrative proceedings and judges must rule on motions and the admissibility of evidence in cases. Fortunately, as an appellate attorney, 90% of the issues I brief concern whether the circuit court judge ruled properly on the admissibility of evidence in cases. Therefore, I have experience with evidentiary issues as well. Finally, the judges must issue written orders and findings in cases. Again, as an appellate attorney, I write for a living. In my briefs and petitions, I analyze cases, the constitution, statutes, and the like. Writing orders and submitting written findings would not be a problem for me. Finally, I handle civil appeals in addition to criminal appeals because our office takes PCR appeals, which means I am also familiar with the S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure. In short, I believe my legal background and practice would provide me with the knowledge needed to perform competently and effectively on the Administrative Law Court."

The following is Ms. Hagler's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Thompson, 584 S.E.2d 131 (2003). Right to counsel in trials in absentia.
(b)   State v. Lindsey, 583 S.E.2d 740 (2003). 1976 Rape is not LWOP enhancer.
(c)   State v. Forrester, 541 S.E.2d 837 (2001). Suspect can limit scope of search.
(d)   Wade v. State, 559 S.E.2d 843 (2002). False testimony sanctions differ at PCR.
(e)   In Re: Johnny F., 443 S.E.2d 543 (1994). School emancipation is no probation condition."

Concerning past unsuccessful judicial candidacies, Ms. Hagler provided the following:

"I ran for a seat on the Administrative Law Court in 1999. I was not one of the final three applicants chosen for presentment to the legislature, so I withdrew from consideration."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Hagler to be a qualified candidate. The committee approved of her candidacy for the Administrative Law Court.

Ms. Hagler is not married. She has one child from a previous marriage.

Ms. Hagler reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   S.C. Women Lawyers Association;
(b)   S.C. Public Defenders Association;
(c)   S.C. Black Lawyers Association."

Ms. Hagler provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
"Brookland Baptist Church, member."

The Commission noted Ms. Hagler's 19 years of law practice at the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense. The Commission also commented on her expertise at brief writing, research, and drafting proposed orders for criminal appellate

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

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

Mr. Hoefer was born on November 20, 1954. He is 50 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Mr. Hoefer provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Hoefer testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. Hoefer described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"03/26-27/04   National Conference of Bar Examiners NCBE;
05/05/04     Ethics GAL Cases WCBA;
01/24/03     Criminal Law Update S.C. Bar;
03/21/03     Accident Litigation LBCI;
06/13-14/03   Bar Examiners Workshop NCBE;
09/05/03     Difficult Clients SCACDL;
09/19/03     Hot Tips-Domestic S.C. Bar;
09/27/02     S.C. Tort Law Update S.C. Bar;
10/18/02     Ethical Issues/Appointed Cases FCBA;
12/13/02     Tips From The Bench S.C. Bar;
01/26/01     Criminal Law Update S.C. Bar;
10/26/01     Legal Ethics 3 FCBA;
01/21/00     Criminal Law Update S.C. Bar;
10/20/00     Ethics FCBA;
01/22/99     Criminal Law Update S.C. Bar;
05/14/99     Cumulative Wisdom SCACDL;
10/22/99     Touchdown Ethics S.C. Bar."

Mr. Hoefer reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar CLE (Ethics) Clemson University, October 2, 1999;
(b)   Florence County Bar Association (Ethical Issues in Appointed Cases), October 18, 2002;
(c)   Williamsburg County Bar Association (Ethics in Appointed Cases), March 6, 2003;
(d)   Florence County Bar Association (Ethics in Guardian ad litem appointments)."

Mr. Hoefer reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

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

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

Mr. Hoefer reported the following concerning public offices he held: "State of South Carolina Ethics Commission, September 1992 to June 1998; Chair from December 1993 to June 1998. Appointed by Governor with advice and consent of the Senate."
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Mr. Hoefer appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Hoefer was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.

Mr. Hoefer reported the following work experience since graduation from law school:
"August 1980 to July 1982:
Law Clerk to Honorable John H. Waller, Jr.
July 1982 to June 1987:
Assistant Solicitor, Twelfth Judicial Circuit.
June 1987 to present:
Harwell, Ballenger & DeBerry (now Ballenger, Barth & Hoefer, L.L.P.)
This is a general practice law firm representing clients in civil (state and federal), domestic, criminal (state and federal), workers' compensation, real estate and general litigation matters."

Mr. Hoefer reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   10%;
(b)   State:     90%."

Mr. Hoefer reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

Mr. Hoefer reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:     20%;
(b)   Non-jury:   80%."

Mr. Hoefer provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Hoefer's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. John R. Baccus, 00-GS-33-004. Case noticed as a death penalty case, tried as murder/burglary; currently on appeal.
(b)   State v. Reggie James, 97-GS-21-955. Murder, client acquitted.
(c)   State v. Helmer Charles Green, 94-GS-21-1168. Murder, client acquitted.
(d)   State v. Lorenzo Jones and Melvin Riles, 342 S.C. 121, 536 S.E.2d 675 (S.Ct. 2000); see also 331 S.C. 228, 500 S.E.2d 499 (S.C. App. 1998), cert. granted 1999.
(e)   Felicia Watson v. Angus Poole, 329 S.C. 232, 495 S.E.2d 236 (S.C. App.1998). Child custody case, served as Guardian ad litem for the child."

Mr. Hoefer reported the following regarding civil appeals he has personally handled:
"I have handled two personally. One was dismissed and the other matter was settled during the pendency of the appeal. Neither is reported."

Mr. Hoefer reported the following concerning unsuccessful judicial candidacies:
"Applied as United States Magistrate Judge, Florence Division (1998) and also Family Court, Seat #3, Florence County (2003)."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Mr. Hoefer "is qualified for election to the Circuit Court. "

Mr. Hoefer is married to Tamara Bashor Hoefer. He has two children.

Mr. Hoefer reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   U.S. District Court Bar;
(c)   Florence County Bar Association;
(d)   American Bar Association;
(e)   American Trial Lawyers Association;
(f)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;
(g)   National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
(h)   South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."

Mr. Hoefer provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Boys and Girls Clubs of the Pee Dee Area, Inc.;
(b)   Florence Soccer Association, Inc., President."

Mr. Hoefer provided the following additional information:
"I am a member of the South Carolina Board of Law Examiners. (I have the assigned areas of Domestic Relations and Equitable Remedies.) I am certified as a circuit civil mediator and arbitrator. Additionally, I am death penalty certified pursuant to Rule 608, SCACR."

The Commission noted that Mr. Hoefer is a highly respected attorney for his 24 years of general practice of law which includes almost five years public service as an assistant solicitor. They commented that his "even-tempered" demeanor would serve him well as a Circuit Court Judge. The Commission found him to be qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

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

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

Ms. Jones was born on October 7, 1952. She is 52 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Jones provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Ms. Jones reported that she has made minimal campaign expenditures for postage.

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

Ms. Jones testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Jones described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Law Practitioners 9/24/99;
(b)   Ethical Dilemmas: Common Problems and Not So Common 9/1/99;
(c)   Women Lawyer Advocates Bridges to the Future 4/9/99;
(d)   Cool Tips from the Hottest Lawyers 5/7/99;

Ms. Jones reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"I taught two courses while in private practice. They are as follows:
(a)   University of South Carolina Coastal Carolina College, Community Law Course, October 1987; and
(b)   Horry Georgetown Technical College, Conway, S.C., Paralegal Curriculum, Fall 1986."

Ms. Jones further provided:
"I served on the faculty, lectured, moderated and coordinated CLE Seminars all of which were related to family law:
(a)   S.C. Bar, Return of Hot Tips by the Experts, coordinator/moderator, 2004;
(b)   S.C. Bar, Return of Hot Tips by the Experts, moderator, 2003;
(c)   S.C. Bar, Return of Hot Tips by the Experts, moderator, 2002;
(d)   S.C. Bar, Return of Hot Tips by the Experts, moderator, 2000;
(e)   S.C. Bar, Return of Hot Tips by the Experts, speaker, 1996;
(f)   S.C. Bar, Return of Hot Tips by the Experts, speaker, 1995;
(g)   Private Investigators Assoc. Annual Convention, Changes in Law, 1995;
(h)   Judicial Conference, Annual Summit Meeting, JCLE, 1993;
(i)   Family Court Judges - Elect Training Seminar, 1992;

Ms. Jones reported that she has published the following:
"Articles and materials prepared for CLEs were published in the seminar books as listed in preceding paragraph."
(4)   Character:

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

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

Ms. Jones reported that she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Ms. Jones appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Jones was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.

Ms Jones reported the following regarding her work experience since law school:

"In describing chronologically my legal experience and the firms with which I have been associated, it may not be clear from my application that I have been in practice from 1993-present date in 2004 as an attorney with Lester and Jones with our primary office located at 1716 Main Street, Columbia, S.C.
Judicial Clerkship, Circuit Court Judge Rodney A. Peeples
August 1978 - November 1979:

Traveled around state as a law clerk for a circuit judge, handling trial docket and contacting attorneys for pre-trial conferences and trial appearances; researching legal issues and reviewing legal briefs submitted by attorneys; sitting in on jury trials and motions; assisting with preparation of Orders and jury charges; participating in judicial and law clerk seminars.
Private Practice, Yarborough Fallon and Mobley, Florence, S.C. November 1979 - 1982:

General Practice Firm; I practiced in all courts, magistrate, commons pleas, general sessions, family court, probate court, and bankruptcy court. I began my interest in family law during these years handling divorces, adoptions, termination of parental rights and juvenile matters. I also had an active tort practice.
Private Practice, Baker, Purvis and Mobley, Darlington, S.C.
1982 - 1984:

Specializing in medical malpractice and products liability cases. Also, I was doing family law for the firm. Our firm represented injured Plaintiffs in medical malpractice and defective product actions.
Private Practice, Harvey L. Golden, P.A., Columbia, S.C.

Specializing in family law. By this time, I was primarily interested in family law litigation and had only been exposed to cases in small towns. I moved back home to Columbia to engage in more complex and sophisticated matrimonial litigation. Our firm took cases statewide and most were litigated to a conclusion. This experience enhanced my skills and trial techniques.
Private Practice, Hearn and Corbett, later merged into Van Osdell, Lester, Hearn, Britton and Martin, Myrtle Beach, S.C.
1987 - 1989:

Specializing in family law litigation. Due to marriage, I relocated to Myrtle Beach and began a domestic practice which is still active today. I continue to enjoy a minimum of 50% of my practice in Horry and Georgetown Counties.
Private Practice, Dorothy Mobley Jones, 1990 -1993, later formed Lester and Jones, Columbia, S.C., when I returned to Columbia, S.C.:

Specializing in domestic law only. After the dissolution of the Van Osdell firm in 1989, I practiced solo for several years until moving back to Columbia. I returned to practice with Ken Lester with whom I had previously practiced from 1984 until 1987, the time of my marriage. We have continued our domestic practice and engage only in the practice of family law."

Ms. Jones reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   0;
(b)   State:     Average of 8 per month."

Ms. Jones reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     less than 3%;
(b)   Criminal:   less than 2%;
(c)   Domestic:   95% or greater."

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

Ms. Jones provided that she most often served as sole counsel in trial and associate counsel on appeals.

The following is Ms. Jones' account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Shaw v. Shaw, Darlington County, Family Court, three or four days of trial; case was appealed by opposing counsel; Ct. Appeals, unpublished opinion (94-846). This case involved issues of transmutation. There was a significant marital estate with a closely held family lumber business. The company was owned by the husband who argued that it was his separate non-marital property. The case was later appealed by the husband, however, the wife prevailed in her argument that the non-marital assets had been used in support of the marriage.
(b)   Housand v. Housand, Georgetown County, Family Court, three or four days of trial. This case involved contested custody of three minor children. The action was brought by my client based on an alleged change in circumstances and was thereafter appealed. As a result of the appeal, my client was awarded custody of the children. 333 S.C. 397, 509 S.E.2d 827 (Ct. App. 1998). A prior action initiated by the Father and an earlier appeal from that ruling had been unsuccessful prior to my representation in this case.
(c)   Adams v. Adams, Horry County, Family Court, three or four days of trial; no appeal taken by either side; Dec. 2002. This case raised issues of transmutation of non-marital property owned by the husband which had been used in support of the marriage. Evidence was developed through scrutiny of banking transactions and land documents to demonstrate the separate nature of the parties' assets despite their lengthy marriage.
(d)   Mozingo v. Mozingo, Darlington County, Family Court, 1984. This case involved the issue of support modification for a former spouse. The litigants were prominent citizens in that county and the husband presented extensive evidence as to his diminished health and reduced ability to earn income. Expert testimony was submitted to the court and it was one of the first such cases I tried during my legal career.
(e)   Sheppard v. Sheppard, Florence County, Family Court, 1980. This case involved extensive litigation over a

The following is Ms. Jones' account of five civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   Willis v. Willis, Ct. Appeals, unpublished opinion, March 14, 2001 (98-DR-26-1366).
(b)   Kline v. Kline, Ct. Appeals, unpublished opinion, summer 1999 (96-DR-26-1091).
(c)   Shaw v. Shaw, Ct. Appeals, unpublished opinion, (94-846).
(d)   Williams v. Williams, 285 S.C. 270, 329 S.E.2d 751 (Ct. App. 1985).
(e)   Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 280 S.C. 546, 314 S.E.2d 16 (Ct. App. 1984)."

Ms. Jones reported regarding prior judicial positions:
"In 1987, I was appointed to serve as a Special Referee in Common Pleas for Horry County."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Jones to be "a qualified and highly-regarded candidate. The committee wholeheartedly approved of her candidacy for the Family Court bench."

Ms. Jones is not married. She has one child by a prior marriage.

Ms. Jones reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Family Law Section;
(c)   South Carolina Bar Family Law Executive Council, member 1985-1997;
(d)   South Carolina Bar Family Law Executive Council, chair 1995-1996;
(e)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, member;
(f)   Richland County Bar Association;
(g)   Horry County Bar Association."

Ms. Jones provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Shandon Baptist Church, Children's Ministry, Sunday school teacher;
(b)   Shandon Baptist Church, Children's Ministry, Records Assistant;
(c)   Care Provider/planner for elderly disabled friend who needs long term care placement and regular assistance;
(d)   School PTO/Parent Organizations."

Ms. Jones additionally reported:
"I have served by appointment on committees for the South Carolina Bar as set out below:
(a)   South Carolina Bar Joint Commission on ADR/Family Court;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Judicial Qualifications Committee, 1993-1995;
(c)   South Carolina Bar, Committee on Specialization of Family Law;
(d)   South Carolina Bar, Long Range Planning Committee;
(e)   South Carolina Bar, Amicus Curie Committee;
(f)   South Carolina Bar Pro Bono Program;
(g)   Horry County Bar, Family Court Advisory Committee;
(h)   During my practice, I have assisted two young attorneys in developing their family law practices."

The Commission found Ms. Jones to be an articulate and knowledgeable domestic practitioner as well as a valuable supporter of the S.C. Bar and its committees. They noted her twenty-six years experience with the past 20 years being devoted to a statewide family law practice. Ms. Jones exhibited exceptional temperament which would be an asset to

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

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

Judge Matthews was born on November 8, 1950. She is 54 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 not made any campaign expenditures.

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.

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:
"2004:
02/24/04   Technology for State and Federal Courts;
01/20/04   Pros and Cons of Tort Reform.
2003:
10/21/03   Class Actions;
09/26/03   S.C. Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Conference;
09/23/03   Civility and Professionalism;
09/16-
09/17/03   Central Panel Conference;
05/02/03   The Certificate of Need Case;
01/23/03   S.C. Bar Convention: Trial and Appellate Advocacy.
2002:
11/19/02   Discovery and Sanctions;
11/01/02   Ethics;
10/29/02   Sealing of Court Records;
09/20/02   S.C. Administrative & Regulatory Law Association Conference;
01/24/02   S.C. Bar Convention Spotlight on Technology in the Courtroom.
2001:
11/07/01   Ethics;
09/21/01   S.C. Administrative & Regulatory Law Association Conference;
04/19/01   Supreme Court Historical Society Colloquium History of Women at the Bar;
01/22-
01/23/01   S.C. Bar Convention: Trial and Appellate Advocacy.
2000:
10/15-
10/17/00   National Association of Administrative Law Judges Seminar, Albany, NY;
05/12/00   Symposium on the Environmental Regulatory Process, Charleston, S.C.;
04/14/00   S.C. Women's Law Association Seminar;

Judge Matthews reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"2004:
03/09/04   Bridge the Gap-'The Eight Commandments of Administrative Law Practice;'
05/18/04   Bridge the Gap--Essential Practice Tips.
2003:
12/12/03   Tips from the Bench IV-'Administrative Law;'
11/14/03   Ethics for State Government Attorneys 'Professionalism in Administrative Law Practice;'
08/07/03   'The Lighter Side of the Law'--Presentation to SCWLA Meeting;
05/12/03   Bridge the Gap-'Administrative Law;'
03/26/03   Panel Discussion for USC Law School Students: 'How Judges Perceive Lawyers;'
03/08/03   Bridge the Gap-'Administrative Law.'
2002:
12/13/02   Tips from the Bench III-'Administrative Law.'
09/12/02   Presentation to S.C. County Auditors and Assessors: 'Ethics and Professionalism: The Eight Commandments of Administrative Law;'
05/14/02   Bridge the Gap-'Administrative Law;'
03/10/02   Bridge the Gap--'Administrative Law.'
2001:
12/12/01   Tips from the Bench II: 'Eight Commandments of Administrative Law;'
05/22/01   Bridge the Gap-'Administrative Law;'
03/11/01   Bridge the Gap-'Administrative Law.'
2000:
05/23/00   Bridge the Gap-'Administrative Law;'
05/12/00   Symposium on the Environmental Regulatory Process: 'Interpreting Regulations: What is Reasonable?'

Judge Matthews reported that she has published the following:
"(a)   Editor, S.C. Bar Natural Resources Newsletter, 1992-1994;
(b)   South Carolina Business Journal, 'Busy Year for Environmental Issues,' S.C. Chamber of Commerce, July 1994;
(c)   Legislative Year in Review, S.C. Bar Annual Conference June 1994;
(d)   Legislative Review, S.C. Bar Annual Conference, June 1993;
(e)   South Carolina State Government Restructured, 'The Private Sector Impact,' September 1993."
(4)   Character:

The C ommission'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."

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 work experience since law school graduation:
"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

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%;

Judge Matthews provided that she most often served as sole counsel prior to election to the bench.

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.

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

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 had brought 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

Judge Matthews reported the following information concerning her prior judicial positions:
"Administrative Law Judge, Seat #3: Elected June 2, 1999; reelected February 9, 2000

By statute, the Administrative Law Court 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 Court 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 ALC 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."

The following is Judge Matthews' account of her most 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

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, Fifth 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)   T rident 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

Judge Matthews reported the following information regarding prior unsuccessful judicial candidacies:
"I was a candidate for the Circuit Court in 1995, but withdrew when it became apparent I could not win. I was a candidate for the S.C. Court of Appeals in 2003. I was found 'Qualified' but not nominated."
(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 found Judge Matthews to be a qualified and highly regarded judge. The committee whole-heartedly approved of her re-election to the Administrative Law Court.

Judge Matthews is married to John Andrew McAllister, Jr. She has one child and two stepchildren.

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];

Judge Matthews reported 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 provided the Commission with the following additional information concerning her candidacy:

"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

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.

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 continue to serve on the Administrative Law Court."

The Commission found Judge Matthews to be qualified for continued service and nominated her for re-election to the Administrative Law Court.

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. McLeod meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge on the Administrative Law Court.

Mr. McLeod was born on October 4, 1942. He is 62 years old and a resident of Winnsboro, South Carolina. Mr. McLeod

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

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

Mr. McLeod reported that he has made $12.46 in campaign expenditures for postage.

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

Mr. McLeod testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. McLeod described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Post Mortem Planning and Estate Administration, Oct. 8-10, 1998;
(b)   Annual Mtg. and Seminar, S.C. Municipal Atty's Association, Dec. 4, 1998;
(c)   S.C. Real Estate Title Law, Problems and Solutions, Oct. 8, 1999;
(d)   Annual Mtg. and Seminar, S.C. Municipal Atty's Association, Dec. 3, 1999;
(e)   Road and Access Law in S.C., How to Research and Resolve Disputes, Sep. 7, 2000;

Mr. McLeod reported that he has taught the following law-related course:

"Presentation to annual South Carolina seminar of Security Title Guaranty Company of 'Dean Figg 's Great Mosaic of the Law, A Few Facets for the Real Estate Lawyer' which was a discourse on a myriad of title issues and a memorial bow toward Dean Robert M. Figg, Professor David Means, and Professor Coleman Karesh."

Mr. McLeod reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. McLeod was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

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

Mr. McLeod reported that he served in the military as follows:
"Fall of 1961 or early 1962 thru February 27, 1964--United States Naval Reserve, Seaman Apprentice; Honorable Discharge."

Mr. McLeod reported that he has held public office as follows:

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

Mr. McLeod appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. McLeod was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.

Mr. McLeod reported the following concerning his work experience following law school:

"From June of 1967 thru June of 1969 I was employed in the Legal Department of the South Carolina Public Service Authority. I was required to do extensive research in the Regulations of the Federal Power Commission (now known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). I also did a substantial amount of real estate title work.

I left SCPSA after two years and opened a law office in Winnsboro, S.C., and have been in solo practiced there ever since. My practice was a broad general practice for the first fifteen or twenty years, but I gradually phased out criminal law and auto accident litigation in favor of a general civil practice with emphasis on probate, real estate and municipal law.

My exposure to administrative law commenced with my substantial immersion in it while at SCPSA. Later I intervened for affected landowners opposing the V.C. Summer Nuclear Plat in a pending license application by SCE&G before the Federal Power Commission. More recently I represented landowners in a matter pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in regard to issuance of dock permits but the matter was not pursued to conclusion.

For more than thirty years I have been Secretary-Treasurer and legal counsel for Farmer's Mutual Fire Insurance Association of Fairfield County, a S.C. domestic mutual insurance company and as such have had to have some facility with the laws and administrative regulations relating thereto.

I, along with able assistance from the Chicago CPA firm of Coopers & Lybrand, successfully staved off a challenge by the

My probate practice has required that I be conversant with basic laws and regulations of the IRS relating to estate taxes. I have represented two large estates before the IRS in which valuations were challenged. I successfully obtained the agricultural use exemption under Section 2032A in two estates over the adamant opposition of the IRS."

Mr. McLeod reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   None;
(b)   State:     Several times a year, usually before a Master-in-Equity."

Mr. McLeod reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     95%;
(b)   Criminal:   0%;
(c)   Domestic:   5%."

Mr. McLeod reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:     0%;
(b)   Non-jury:   100%."

Mr. McLeod provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. McLeod 's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Most significant was my representation of landowner families in opposition to the V.C. Summer Nuclear Project before the Federal Power Commission. Even though the matter was settled without hearing, all of the research and preparation was complete and it provided meaningful insight into administrative law.
(b)   C. Ray Miles Construction Company, Inc., Respondent v. R.E. Weaver, Appellant, 373 S.E.2d 905 (S.C. Court of Appeals 1988) in which I represented the appellant is significant as the hardest fought civil case in my career. I prevailed in the appeal but later lost on the merits.
(c)   I, along with the late Thomas Lydon, successfully defended John Wells Trowery, who was accused of the murder

The following is Mr. McLeod 's account of three civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   C. Ray Miles Construction Company, Inc., Respondent v. R.E. Weaver, Appellant, 296 S.C. 466, 373 S.E.2d 905 (S.C. Court of Appeals 1988) in which I represented the appellant is significant as the hardest fought civil case in my career. I prevailed in the appeal but later lost on the merits.
(b)   Ex Parte: John D. McLeod, Respondent, In Re: Estate of Lillian Evans Kennedy, Appellant. (S.C. Court of Appeals, 1996), 323 S.C. 461; 476 S.E.2d 167.
(c)   Charles M. Davis, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fannie Gladys Johnston, Appellant v. Arthur Price, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fannie Gladys Johnston, and Frances Price, individually, Respondents. Appeal from Probate Court of Fairfield County to Court of Common Pleas, August 10,1999. (Unpublished)."

Mr. McLeod reported regarding prior judicial positions:

"I have been appointed Special Referee by the Court of Common Pleas more times than I can remember. Until the change in the SCRCP, which gives Special Referees the same

Mr. McLeod reported regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"Candidate for S.C. House of Representatives in 1972. Defeated by Ben F. Hornsby."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. McLeod to be qualified to serve as a judge on the Administrative Law Court.

Mr. McLeod is married to Virginia Martin Ingram McLeod. He has two children.

Mr. McLeod reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   Chester/Fairfield Public Defenders Board, member and former chairman."

Mr. McLeod provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Mount Zion Society (educational) Secretary-Treasurer (no longer a member);
(b)   St. Andrews Society of the City of Columbia (social, charitable, educational) President (no longer a member);
(c)   Edisto Island Yacht Club (still a member);
(d)   Fairfield Country Club (no longer a member)."

Mr. McLeod reported the following additional information:
"Eagle Scout; Elder, Zion Presbyterian Church; currently serving on 6th Circuit Resolution of Fee Disputes Committee; formerly served on S.C. Bar Committee on Practice and Procedure."

The Commission noted Mr. McLeod has represented clients before several federal administrative agencies in his 37 years of practicing law. The Commission commented that Mr. McLeod

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

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

Mr. Nettles was born on March 9, 1959. He is 45 years old and a resident of Lake City, South Carolina. Mr. Nettles provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Nettles testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.

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

Mr. Nettles described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   1999 S.C. Torts Law Update;
(b)   1999 Criminal Practice in S.C.;
(c)   1999 Criminal Law Ethics;
(d)   2000 Defective Machinery in the Work Place;
(e)   2000 Construction Claims in S.C.;
(f)   2000 Lawyer Ethics: A Daily Dilemma;
(g)   2000 Advanced Workers Compensation in S.C.;
(h)   2001 11th Annual Criminal Practice in S.C.;
(i)   2002 S.C. Torts Law Update;
(j)   2002 Workers Compensation in S.C.;
(k)   2003 Criminal Law Hot Tips;
(l)   2003 S.C. Construction Defects and Mold Litigation;
(m)   2003 Family Law Ethics;
(n)   2004 19th Annual Criminal Law Update;
(o)   2004 Marketing Your Profession."

Mr. Nettles reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   Business Law - Florence Darlington Technical College, 1985;
(b)   Business Law - Williamsburg Technical College, 1986-87."

Mr. Nettles reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

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

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

Mr. Nettles reported that he is an appointed member of the Florence County Tax Assessors Appeals Board.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Mr. Nettles appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Nettles was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

Mr. Nettles provided the following regarding his work experience since law school:

"I have been engaged in the general practice of law in Lake City, South Carolina, as a partner in the firm of Nettles, Turbeville & Reddeck, for the past 20 years. Over the past five years, I have handled 680 criminal, 176 civil, 37 real estate transactions, and 26 domestic cases. As the years progressed, two of my partners have practiced Real Estate exclusively and my sister has practiced Domestic law exclusively. In the early years of my practice, there was a more equal division of my caseload. Presently, I only handle domestic matters and real estate transactions for ongoing clients."

Mr. Nettles reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   federal:   Approximately 3 federal criminal cases per year;
(b)   state:     756 cases."

Mr. Nettles reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   civil:     20% (4% representing small businesses);
(b)   criminal:   74%;
(c)   domestic:   2%.

*Over the past five years I have incorporated and/or organized and represented 41 small businesses and I handle their day-to-day legal affairs."

Mr. Nettles reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   jury:     10% (20% reflects civil cases settled);
(b)   non-jury:   70%."

Mr. Nettles provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Nettles' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   In Re: Eskridge, 559 S.E.2d 575 (2002). I was retained to represent the Honorable Thomas H. Eskridge, Jr. in a disciplinary action for Judicial Misconduct.
(b)   State v. Winston McClam, (C.A. No.: 2004-GS-21-146). Defendant was charged with murder and found not guilty by way of self-defense.
(c)   Robert Whitehead v. BEC Construction, et al., (C.A. No.98-CP-22-336). This was a complex construction case involving defective stucco exterior.
(d)   Connie Strickland v. Bristol Meyers Squibb, (C.A. No. 4-91-3617-2). This was a breast implant case. The class certification took place in Birmingham, Alabama. We opted out of the class and prepared it for trial. The case was settled days before trial in Federal Court, Florence Division.
(e)   State v. Jamel Brown, (Case No.: 01-GS-21-352). Defendant was charged with armed robbery. He was found not guilty. This case involved issues of identification, competency of witnesses and Lyles issues."

Mr. Nettles reported that he personally handled the following civil appeal:
"Nexsen v. Haddock, 576 S.E.2d 183, S.C. App. 2002."

Mr. Nettles provided the following list of criminal appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   State v. Kamathene Cooper, 353 S.E.2d 441 (1986). Capital Murder.
(b)   State v. Charlie Dorn Smith, 447 S.E.2d 175 (1993). Capital Murder.
(c)   USA v. Laurie Cooper, 946 F.2d 887 (1991). Helped define Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
(d)   State v. Linda Sue Squires, 426 S.E.2d 738 (1992). S. C. Supreme Court case that upheld validity of Datamaster Test.

Mr. Nettles reported that he has served on the Florence County Tax Assessors Appeals Board since his appoi ntment on October 5, 1996.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Mr. Nettles "is qualified for election to the Circuit Court."

Mr. Nettles is married to Donna Jean Nettles. He has three children.

Mr. Nettles reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   Florence County Bar Association, Secretary;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."

Mr. Nettles provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Lake City First Baptist Church, Deacon;
(b)   Lake City Rotary Club, Past president;
(c)   Lake City Masonic Lodge;
(d)   Lake City Country Club."

Mr. Nettles further provided:
"I was a volunteer coach in the Lake City Recreation Department, coaching baseball, softball, and football. I am very active in the Lake City First Baptist Church. I teach the Young Adult Men 's Sunday School Class and direct and participate in the Foreign Mission program."

The Commission noted that Mr. Nettles has a wide variety of experience as a general practitioner for the past 20 years. They commented on his "easy-going" demeanor which would assist him as a Circuit Court judge. The Commission found him to be qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

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

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

Ms. Potterfield was born on September 1, 1967. She is 37 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Potterfield provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Ms. Potterfield reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

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

Ms. Potterfield testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Potterfield described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention, August 3, 2000;. 2001:     S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention, August 2, 2001;

Richland County Bar 7th Annual Ethics Seminar, November 2, 2001.
2002:     S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention, August 1, 2002;

Richland County Bar Ethics CLE, November 1, 2002.
2003:     S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention, August 7, 2003.
2004:     New Judges School; Revised Lawyer's Oath and Ethics, September 14, 2004."

Ms. Potterfield reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"1999:
Cool Tips from the Hottest Lawyers, May 7, 1999, speaker;
That Was the Year that Was, January 8, 1999, speaker on Family Court issues;
S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention, August 1999, speaker, Family Court Section.
2000:
Family Court Bench/Bar Update, January 7, 2000, speaker;
S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention, August 3, 2000, moderator/coordinator.
2001:
S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention, August 2, 2001, moderator/coordinator.
2002 :
Cool Tips from the Hottest Lawyers, April 19, 2002, speaker;
S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention, August 1, 2002, moderator/coordinator;
Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Lawyers, September 20, 2002, speaker;
2003:
Cool Tips from the Hottest lawyers, April 25, 2003, speaker;
S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention, August 7, 2003, moderator/coordinator;
2004:
New Judges School;

Ms. Potterfield reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Potterfield was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Potterfield reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Ms. Potterfield appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Potterfield was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.

Ms. Potterfield reported her work history since law school as follows:

"In September 1991, I started working for the Aiken County Public Defender Corporation. This was a Family Court position that was funded through a grant from the Governor's office. I solely represented juvenile defendants.

In approximately May 1992, I started working at the Richland County Public Defender Office as an attorney assigned to Family Court. I did make a few appearances in General Sessions with juvenile defendants that had been waived from Family Court to Juvenile Court.

In February 1993 I started working as an associate for Harvey L. Golden. My practice turned from 100% criminal in Family Court to 100% civil in Family Court. In the Fall of 1994, I was made a partner in the current law firm of Golden, Taylor, Potterfield, and Barron. I handle all domestic cases. "

Ms. Potterfield reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   None;
(b)   State:     an average of 1 to 2 times per week."

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

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

Ms. Potterfield provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Potterfield's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   DSS v. Denter. This Abuse and Neglect case began with sexual abuse allegations against the father. The allegations surfaced during a hotly contested custody action. This case was important because the allegations were made in an effort to impact the divorce and custody case pending in another county. The Court in this case did not find that the father was the perpetrator.
(b)   King v. King. The case was the culmination of almost 10 years of litigation between these parties. This specific trial dealt with post divorce custody. This case was important because mental health professionals, the Guardian ad Litem, the lawyers, and the Court worked very hard to put together creative solutions for this family.
(c)   Snyder v. Snyder. This case was a short marriage that ended with a fault ground and a great deal of debt. This case was a challenge because the parties created a

The following is Ms. Potterfield's account of a civil appeal she has personally handled:
"Ralph R. Grainger, Appellant v. Betsy G. Grainger and Morgan Manor, LLC, Defendants of whom Betsy G. Grainger is Respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals, unpublished Opinion No. 2002-UP-67 filed October 9, 2002."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Potterfield to be a qualified and highly-regarded candidate.

Ms. Potterfield is married to John Cheney Potterfield. She has one child.

Ms. Potterfield reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar, 1991 to present; currently I serve on the Family Law Council.
(b)   Richland County Bar, 1991 to present. I have served as the Family Court chair and on the Family Court Committee.
(c)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, 1993 to present. I served as the Family Law Chairperson from 1999-2003.
(d)   American Bar Association Family Law Section, 1993 to present."

Ms. Potterfield provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"I am an active member of the Junior League of Columbia. I have served as the co-chair of the Clean Sweep Silent Auction; co-chair of the Clean Sweep Preview Party; and currently as the Chair of the Clean Sweep Preview Party Committee."

The Commission noted that Ms. Potterfield's experience in domestic and juvenile matters as well as her energy and enthusiasm would make her an asset to the Family Court bench. They recognized that Ms. Potterfield enjoys widespread respect as a domestic law practitioner within the local bar and commented on her active involvement on bar committees. The Commission found Ms. Potterfield qualified for election to the Family Court bench.

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

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

Mr. Proffitt was born on June 5, 1962. He is 42 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Proffitt 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 1996. Mr. Proffitt has also been a licensed attorney in the State of North Carolina since 1997.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Proffitt testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Mr. Proffitt described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2004:   S.C. Judicial Department's Annual Judicial Conference, August 19;

Bluebooking & Editing (in-house appellate court seminar), June 2;

Law & Education (in-house appellate court seminar), February 20.
2003:     Litigation Under the S.C. Tort Claims Act, August 15.

Masters in Trial Advocacy, November 15.
2001:     S.C. Employment Law Update, May 11;

Document Management, May 29;

S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention, August.
2000:     S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention, August;

A Haven for Dissenters in America: South Carolina, February 18.
1999:     Orientation for Attorneys to Assist Disciplinary Counsel, July 16;

Appellate Law Clerks and Staff Attorneys Seminars, August 19 & 23;

Appointments in Family Court Child Protection Cases, December 10."

Mr. Proffitt reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I was an adjunct professor at USC School of Law for four years, from 1998 to 2002. I taught legal writing and analysis to first-year law students. In the fall semester, we focused on how to analyze case law and statutes and learned to write a legal memorandum. In the spring semester, we again focused on how to analyze case law and statutes, studied how to cite various types of legal authority, and learned how to write an appellate brief. My classes consisted of ten to twelve students."

Mr. Proffitt reported that he has published the following:
"Condominium Buyer Bound by Restrictions in Master Deed and Bylaws, 47 S.C. Law Review 138 (Autumn 1995) (student note in Annual Survey of South Carolina Law)."
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Proffitt was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Mr. Proffitt reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Mr. Proffitt appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Proffitt was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1996.

Mr. Proffitt reported his work experience since law school as follows: "August 1996 to August 1998:

Staff attorney at the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Wrote memos to Court explaining facts, parties' positions, and applicable law in a wide variety of case s and motions; drafted proposed orders and unpublished opinions.
August 1998 to July 2000:

Law clerk for the Honorable John H. Waller, Jr., at the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Researched law and wrote bench memoranda explaining facts, parties' positions, and applicable law in a wide variety of cases; drafted opinions for publication.
1998 to 2002:

Taught legal writing and analysis to first-year students at USC School of Law, focusing on preparation of legal memoranda in the fall semester and appellate briefs in the spring semester.
July 2000 to July 2002:

General practice of law in Columbia with emphasis on representing individuals with cases involving personal injury, workers' compensation claims, medical malpractice, product liability, and general civil litigation; practiced with David E. Massey, David A. Fedor, and Richard L. Eaton, Jr.

General practice of law in Columbia with emphasis on representing individuals with cases involving personal injury, workers' compensation claims, family law, medical malpractice, product liability, and general civil litigation; worked as a sole practitioner.
November 2003 to present:

Law clerk for the Honorable E.C. Burnett, III, at South Carolina Supreme Court.

Research law and write bench memoranda explaining facts, parties' positions, and applicable law in a wide variety of cases; draft opinions for publication."

Mr. Proffitt reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   Fewer than five;
(b)   State:     Average 1-3 times per month;
(Answers based on private practice from 2000 to 2003)."

Mr. Proffitt reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     85%;
(b)   Criminal:   5%;
(c)   Domestic:   10%;
(Answers based on private practice from 2000 to 2003)."

Mr. Proffitt reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:     5%;
(b)   Non-jury:   95 percent settled or resolved prior to trial."

Mr. Proffitt provided that he most often served as co-counsel.
(Answers based on private practice from 2000 to 2003).

The following is Mr. Proffitt's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Weathersby v. Right Way Construction, Inc., and DHA Enterprises, Inc., C.A. No. 2000-26-603 (Horry County). I represented Mr. Weathersby, who suffered severe, life-changing injuries in an on-the-job fall at a Myrtle Beach construction site. I was lead counsel during the litigation of the case; Mr. Weathersby also was represented by David Fedor and Pat McWhirter,

The following is Mr. Proffitt's response regarding civil appeals he has personally handled:

"I prepared a return to Waste Management's petition for a writ of certiorari to the state Supreme Court in Bryant v. Waste Management, Inc., 342 S.C. 159, 536 S.E.2d 380 (Ct. App. 2000), a case in which the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. I have written bench memoranda and drafts of opinions in numerous

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Proffitt to be a qualified candidate. The committee approved of his candidacy for the Family Court bench.

Mr. Proffitt is married to Joan Ella (Sterk) Proffitt. He has two children.

Mr. Proffitt reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   North Carolina Bar;
(c)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association."

The Commission commented that Mr. Proffitt is a very bright candidate with a high potential for success. They noted that while Mr. Proffitt has limited family court practice, his diverse background as a former adjunct law professor and currently as a clerk for the S.C. Supreme Court gives him a unique perspective and a broad base understanding of people. The Commission found Mr. Proffitt qualified for election to the Family Court.

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Robinson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge on the Administrative Law Court.

Ms. Robinson was born on March 14, 1951. She is 53 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Robinson provided in her application that she has been a resident of

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

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

Ms. Robinson reported that she has made $85.96 in campaign expenditures for stationery and postage.

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

Ms. Robinson testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Robinson described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   The Practice of Law: Fair Billing, February 20, 1999;
(b)   Fifth Annual Ethics Seminar, November 5, 1999;
(c)   SCTLA Auto Torts XXII, December 3-4, 1999;
(d)   Solo & Small Office, March 10, 2000;
(e)   SCARLA Administrative Law Seminar, September 21, 2001;
(f)   SCAGO Ethics for Government Lawyers, October 26, 2001;
(g)   Local Government Attorney's Institute, December 27, 2001;
(h)   The Ethics Reform Act, September 11, 2002;
(i)   SCARLA Educational Seminar, September 20, 2002;

Ms. Robinson reported that she has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Ms. Robinson reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Robinson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Robinson reported that she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

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

Ms. Robinson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.

Ms. Robinson provided the following work experience since graduation from law school:
"1991:
Law Firm of Edward and Associates, Columbia, S.C.

Associate (worked as Law Clerk prior to graduation)
Involved in general practice primarily in the civil area to include domestic cases, personal injury, and worker 's compensation cases.
1991-1992:
Eighth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office, Greenwood, S.C.
Assistant Solicitor

Served as the chief prosecutor for family court representing DSS in child abuse and neglect cases and prosecuting juvenile delinquency cases.
1992-1994:
South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus, Columbia, S.C.
Executive Director

Legal skills were minimally utilized on some research projects.
1995-2000:
Law Offices of Newman & Sabb, P.A., Columbia, S.C.
Senior Associate

Involved in general practice primarily in the areas of family law, worker's compensation, probate and consumer bankruptcy. Also handled a small amount of civil litigation in federal, state and magistrate's court, and before administrative bodies.
2000:
Law Offices of Ronnie A. Sabb, LLC, Columbia, S.C.
Senior Associate

Name of firm changed following Clifton Newman's election to the Circuit Court Bench. However, my practice remained the same except that I assumed responsibility for the management of the office and staff.
2000-Present:
S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, Columbia, S.C.
Hearing Advisor

Provide legal advice to layman regulatory board members, layman only from the legal prospective, and staff on the proper conduct of disciplinary hearings, and preparing final orders at the conclusion of the proceedings. These regulatory boards are quasi-judicial and disciplinary hearings must comply with due process requirements and the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. To function effectively, thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the practice acts of the various boards are required, as well as a thorough comprehension of the Administrative Procedures Act."

Ms. Robinson reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   Appeared in Federal Bankruptcy Court on a weekly basis prior to leaving private practice;
(b)   State:     Appeared in family court on a weekly basis prior to leaving private practice."

Ms. Robinson reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     60% (including bankruptcy cases);
(b)   Criminal:   0%;
(c)   Domestic:   40%."

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

Ms. Robinson provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Robinson's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Mollie A. Brooks, et al. v. S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control, et al.

Case was significant to me because it represented my first de novo hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and it was also the beginning of my interest in administrative law.
(b)   In Re: The Estate of Herbert O. Pointer v. Phyllis Pointer.

Case was significant because it involved a novel issue for me as well as the Richland County Probate Court. The PR sought to exclude my client as an heir by asserting that

Case was significant because it was a federal case that involved complex issues requiring extensive pre-trial prep and the participation of several experts. The case ultimately concluded with a sizable settlement for the client on the morning the jury trial was scheduled to begin.
(d)   Yvonne Y. Page v. James Page.

I found the case to be significant because of the highly contested nature of the dispute between the parties over the custody of their young daughter, and the case was well litigated on both sides.
(e)   Marilyn McFadden v. Douglas McFadden.

The case was significant because it was also highly contested with allegations of major marital misconduct coming from both parties, and because I did not feel that some actions by the husband's attorney promoted the best interest of the parties or the children."

The following is Ms. Robinson's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   Margaret B. Brantley v. William B. Brantley, S.C. Court of Appeals, decision rendered on March 13, 2000.
(b)   George Jones v. Arthur Mae Jones, S.C. Court of Appeals, decision rendered on October 1, 1998.
(c)   Bobby Lee Schumpert v. The Estate of Pearl Schumpert Jenkins, S.C. Court of Appeals, decision rendered on May 19, 1997."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Robinson to be a qualified candidate. The committee approved of her candidacy for the Administrative Law Court.

Ms. Robinson is not married. She has one child by a prior marriage.

Ms. Robinson reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Currently, a member of the South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association;
(c)   Formerly, a member of the Richland County Bar Association;
(d)   Formerly, a member of the Women's Lawyers Association;
(e)   Formerly, a member of the Columbia Lawyer's Association."

Ms. Robinson provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Presently serve on the Board of Directors for the Columbia Bethlehem Community Center. Currently serving as Chairman of the Personnel Committee;
(b)   Presently a member of the James L. Belin Trust Board of Trustees. Currently serving as Secretary of the Board;
(c)   Recipient of Am Jur Award following first semester of law school enrollment."

Ms. Robinson provided the Commission the following information concerning her candidacy:

"I have a very diverse professional background and have worked on different levels in each field and worked with persons from very varying economical, social and ethnic backgrounds. My courtroom experiences have shown me that judges who have the background and experiences that I possess are more apt to apply the law and exercise their judicial authority in a fair and impartial manner."

The Commission noted that Ms. Robinson's calm demeanor would serve her well as an Administrative Law Judge. They commented that her current position for the past four years as a Hearing Advisor at Labor, Licensing and Regulation would transition well to the bench. In her previous private law practice Ms. Robinson gained important experience

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

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

Mr. Russo was born on April 26, 1955. He is 49 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Mr. Russo 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 1987. Mr. Russo has also been licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia since 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Russo testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.

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

Mr. Russo described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   S.C. Bar Annual Criminal Law Update, January 2004;
(b)   Training Beginning Westlaw, January 2004;
(c)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 2003;
(d)   S.C. Bar Annual Criminal Law Update, January 2002;
(e)   NCDA Career Prosecutor Course, June 2002;
(f)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 2002;
(g)   SCCPC DUI 101: For Law Enforcement, March 2001;
(h)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 2001;
(i)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 2000;
(j)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 1999;
(k)   NCDA Prosecuting Homicide Cases, November 1999."

Mr. Russo reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:

"I teach Business Law classes at Florence/Darlington Technical College and have done so since January 2001.

I taught a conference on trying DUI cases. This was primarily for Law Enforcement Agencies in helping police officers prosecute DUI cases in Municipal and Magistrates Courts, from both the prosecution as well as the defense perspectives."

Mr. Russo reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

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

Mr. Russo reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Mr. Russo appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Mr. Russo was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1987.

Mr. Russo reported the following concerning his work experience following law school:
"January 1987 to December 1987:
Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Court Judge, Greenville, S.C.

Law Clerk to Judge Anderson preparing legal briefs and memoranda on various issues before the Court. Also, had the opportunity to work with Judge Anderson on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals when he was asked to sit for a week of oral arguments as a Special Judge, preparing and briefing the judge on the issues to be before the Court for oral arguments that week.
January 1988 to October 1988:
Law Offices of Mitchell Willoughby, Columbia, S.C.

Communications Law; Public Utility Law; Securities Law; Administrative Law; Transportation Law.
October 1989 to September 1991:
Knox & Zacks, P.A., Augusta, Ga.

Medical malpractice defense of doctors and hospitals. Plaintiffs' construction litigation, real estate, contracts and auto torts.
September 1991 to November 1993:
Second Circuit Solicitors Office, Aiken, S.C.

Deputy Solicitor in charge of prosecution of all drug cases in Aiken, Barnwell & Bamberg Counties. Helped establish a Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force between the law enforcement agencies in the circuit's three counties.

General Civil Practice; Trials in all State and Federal Courts; Automobile Accident; Personal Injury; Workers Compensation; Products Liability; Wrongful Death Law.
October 1995 to February 1999:
Law Office of Thomas A. Russo, Edgefield, S.C.

General practice of law with an emphasis in Plaintiffs' personal injury work; Criminal defense, real estate, probate, contracts and adoptions.
March 1996 to February 1999:
Tri-County Public Defender, Edgefield, McCormick & Saluda Counties

Served as the public defender for the referenced counties while continuing my private practice of law. I would represent indigent defendants during each term of General Sessions Court and maintain my private practice whenever General Sessions was not in session.
February 1999 to Present:
Twelfth Circuit Solicitors Office, Florence, S.C.

Deputy Solicitor focusing on violent crimes and drug cases. I prosecute those type cases in both Florence and Marion Counties."

Mr. Russo reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   None;
(b)   State:     Daily."

Mr. Russo reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     0%;
(b)   Criminal:   100%;
(c)   Domestic:   0%."

Mr. Russo reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:     30%;
(b)   Non-jury:   70%."

Mr. Russo provided that he most often served as chief counsel and/or sole counsel.

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

I prosecuted Mr. Acosta and he was found guilty of Murder. He received a sentence of Life w/o Parole. This was an unusual trial in that Mr. Acosta did not speak English and we had to try the entire case with the aide of 2 Spanish speaking interpreters, one as the official Court interpreter and one to sit at the Defense table to interpret for the Defendant. I was assisted by one of our assistant solicitors who spoke fluent Spanish.
(b)   State v. Gregory Tucker, Indictment #01-GS-21-1503; Jury Trial, GUILTY all Counts.

I prosecuted Mr. Tucker who was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct 1st Degree, Kidnapping and Possession of a Weapon During the Commission of a Crime of Violence. He was found guilty on all counts. He received a sentence of 30 years on the CSC 1st and 30 years on the Kidnapping, concurrent to each other and an additional sentence of 5 years on the Possession of a Weapon charge to run consecutive to the two 30 year sentences. This was a difficult case in that it involved a young girl and the Defendant was a family friend who abducted her and violently raped her at knifepoint.
(c)   State v. Tracy Daniels, Indictment #00-GS-21-977; Jury Trial - GUILTY.

I prosecuted Mr. Daniels who was charged with Murder. He was found guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter. He received a sentence of 26 years. Mr. Daniels and the victim were drinking and he shot the victim in the chest with a shotgun at close range. This case presented interesting forensic evidence and expert testimony regarding the firing of the shotgun and trigger-pull tests conducted on the weapon. There were also allegations of a homosexual confrontation between the victim and defendant.
(d)   State v. Mark Anthony Kennedy, Indictments #98-GS-41-525 and 526; Jury Trial - NOT GUILTY.

I defended Mr. Kennedy who was charged with Armed Robbery and Possession of a Weapon During the Commission of a Crime of Violence. He was found

I represented the plaintiff in this automobile accident where both liability and damages were contested. This was a soft tissue case where my client, who was basically a homeless person, compromised his medical bills by not attending his follow-up treatments and re-hab appointments because he had no insurance or money. The liability was hotly contested and the jury did return a verdict for the plaintiff. However, because of the minimal medical bills and lack of expert testimony as to the plaintiffs damages, the jury awarded my client $1.00 in damages (Yes, $1.00!!) The judge did congratulate me in that my case was the first plaintiff's verdict he had had in his court in over 6 months. He just explained that even though the jury believed our case and found the defendant at fault, they just did not believe my client was hurt or injured. I made a motion for additure and it was denied."

Mr. Russo reported that he has personally handled the following civil appeal:
"James A. Furse and Sara B. Furse, Plaintiffs v. Timber Acquisition, a Limited Partnership, and Federal Paper Board Company, Inc., its General Partner, as Successors in Interest to Continental Can Company,

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Mr. Russo "is qualified for election to the Circuit Court."

Mr. Russo is married to Cheryl Matthews Russo. He has two children.

Mr. Russo reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Florence County Bar Association;
(c)   United States District Court Bar;
(d)   American Bar Association;
(e)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;
(f)   National College of District Attorneys."

Mr. Russo provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:
"I am a member of the Central American Mission team at Lambs Chapel Church."

Mr. Russo provided the following additional information to the Commission in support of his candidacy:

"As you can see from my legal career, I have practiced in most all phases of law where a circuit court judge would preside; civil plaintiff, civil defense, criminal defense and criminal prosecution. This is not by chance. In attempting to prepare for my career goal of serving as a trial judge, I have sought these experiences so that, as a judge, I could have a working understanding of each of these areas. Although it may sound odd, I believe my 17 years as a high school football official has given me a rare and valuable experience in assisting me in handling many of the responsibilities a judge is required to handle. I have spent the last 13 years in the high school league at the position of Head Referee. For those years I have presided over more than 100 high school football games making sure the coaches and players play the game within the

The Commission noted Mr. Russo's extensive public service in the Public Defender's Office and as a Deputy Solicitor during his 17 years of practicing law. The Commission commented that Mr. Russo's wide range of criminal and civil trial experiences as well as his background as an impartial high school football referee would serve him well on the bench. The Commission found him to be qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

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:
"2004:   01/23,19th Annual Criminal Law Update;

01/23, 2nd Annual Civil Law Update;

08/18, S.C. Judicial Conference.
2003:     01/24, 18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

05/07, S.C. Circuit Judges' Conference;

08/07, The Civil Jury in America;

08/21, S.C. Judicial Conference.
2002:     01/25, 17th Annual Criminal Law Update;

05/08, S.C. Circuit Judges' Conference;

08/22, S.C. Judicial Conference.
2001:     01/05, Sticks & Stones, Appointed;

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

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

07/09, Law & the Social & Behavioral Sciences;

08/23, S.C. Judicial Conference.
2000:     01/21, S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

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

08/07, Media and the Courts.
1999:     01/22, S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update;

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

07/19-23, Constitutional Criminal Procedure; History & Theory of Jurisprudence;

07/26, Judicial Writing;

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

08/19, S.C. Judicial Conference."

Judge Short reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"September 15, 1995: South Carolina Legal Secretaries Association; I was the instructor for a Seminar on Rules of Civil Procedure.
September 30 - October 18, 1996: National Judicial College/Reno, Nevada; I served as a Group Facilator with the faculty for the General Jurisdiction Course for new Judges. I led group discussions four hours each day on a wide variety of legal topics.
September 29, 1997: South Carolina Solicitors Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; I spoke on the topic Case File Development and Review, A View from the Judiciary."

Judge Short reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(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 provided the following information regarding his military experience:
"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 gave the following account of his experience in public office:
"South Carolina House of Representatives, elected, 1982-1991;
Chester County Airport Commission, appointed, 1978-1980;
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 gave the following account of his work experience following law school graduation:

"I began the general practice of law in November 1971 in Chester, South Carolina, with Mr. Fred H. Strickland and Mr. E.K. Hardin, who later became Probate Judge of Chester County. 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.

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.

On May 25, 2004, I was elected to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Seat #1."

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 he most often served prior to election to the bench as sole counsel and occasionally 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

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

Judge Short reported the following concerning criminal appeals:

"I began serving as a Circuit Court Judge in 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."

Judge Short reported the following concerning prior judicial offices he has held:
"July 1991-February 1999; S.C. Circuit Court At-Large Seat #8;
February 1999-May 2004; Resident Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit;
May 2004-Present; South Carolina Court of Appeals, Seat #1."

Judge Short provided the Commission his five most significant orders:
"(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

Judge Short reported the following concerning his unsuccessful candidacies for judicial office:

"I withdrew from the race for South Carolina Court of Appeals, Seat #6 on February 4, 2003, after having been selected as one of the three candidates by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission."

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 Deacon, Elder;
(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."

Judge Short provided the Commission with the following additional information in support of his candidacy:
"While I was practicing law, I had the pleasure to serve and to gain valuable experience on the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline."

The Commission found Judge Short to be qualified for continued service. He was nominated for re-election to the Court of Appeals.

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

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

Ms. Smalls was born on November 19, 1962. She is 42 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Smalls 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 1989.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

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

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

Ms. Smalls reported that she has made $63.00 in campaign expenditures for postage.

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

Ms. Smalls testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Smalls described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Juvenile Defense Seminar, 02/05/1999;
(b)   S.C. Public Defender Annual Conference, 10/03/1999;
(c)   S.C. Public Defender Annual Conference, 10/02/2000;
(d)   S.C. Public Defender Annual Conference, 10/01/2001;
(e)   S.C. Public Defender Annual Conference, 09/30/2002;

New Strategies for Difficult Times;
(f)   Estates, Guardianship, 12/12/2003;
(g)   Celebrating 40 Years of Gideon, 09/29/2003;
(h)   Civility Ethics Oath, 07/28/2004;

Ms. Smalls reported that she has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Ms. Smalls reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Smalls was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Smalls reported that she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Ms. Smalls appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Smalls was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1989.

Ms. Smalls reported the following information concerning her work experience since graduation from law school:
"1989-1995:
Richland County Office of the Public Defender

Responsible for the representation of indigent persons in jury trials, guilty pleas, bond hearings, preliminary hearings and probation violations.

Responsible for the overseeing of two other attorneys within the public defender's office. Duties included representing indigent persons in Family Court in bench trials, guilty pleas, and detention hearings.
1992:
Interim Chief Public Defender

Responsible for the management of fifteen attorneys and support staff; presenting budget to County Council and maintaining an active caseload of approximately two hundred and fifty (250) cases.
1995-Present:
Solo Practitioner, Law Office of Gwendlyne Young Smalls

Practice in Family Court involving juvenile defense, divorces, adoptions, abuse and neglect, termination of parental rights, guardian ad litem and child support matters; criminal defense in magistrate, state and federal court.

I worked on a contract basis with the South Carolina Department of Social Services under the Kellogg Grant terminating parental rights while in private practice from June 1995 through July 1996."

Ms. Smalls reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   5%;
(b)   State:     95%."

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

Ms. Smalls reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:     20%;
(b)   Non-jury:   80%."

Ms. Smalls reported that she most often served as sole counsel.

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

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Smalls to be a qualified candidate. The committee approved of her candidacy for the Family Court bench.

Ms. Smalls is married to Darryl Dwain Smalls. She has two children.

Ms. Smalls reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   Richland County Bar Association;
(b)   Columbia Lawyer's Association;
(c)   South Carolina Black Lawyers' Association."

Ms. Smalls provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

Ms. Smalls provided the following additional information to the Commission in support of her candidacy:

"A considerable portion of my practice has been devoted to the issues that are relative to Family Court. I firmly believe that I possess the requisite experience and judicial temperament to serve as a Family Court Judge. My varied legal experience has prepared me to meet the challenges that will be presented in the Family Court. My knowledge of the law, ability to apply the law to the facts before me, to relate well to others, and to remain neutral and unbiased will prove an asset to the Family Court."

The Commission noted that Ms. Smalls has six years prior public service as counsel with the Public Defender's Office. The Commission believes that her diverse Family Court private practice over the past decade would enable her to efficiently consider the many types of cases likely to come before a Family Court judge. The Commission commented that she is a self-assured attorney, who would be able to take control of a courtroom. The Commission found her to be qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court.

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

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

Ms. Streater was born on August 7, 1964. She is 40 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Streater 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 1989.

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

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

Ms. Streater reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

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

Ms. Streater testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

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

Ms. Streater described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"02-05-99   ABA Resisting the Abolition of Childhood: In Defense of Children in the Juvenile Court;
04-10-99   ABA Ninth National Conference on Children and the Law;
09-29-99   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, A Forum on Family Court: Best Practices;
Annual Solicitors' Association Conference;
11-12-99   Ethics and Rules of Conduct for Representing, Lobbying of Doing Business with the Public Sector in South Carolina;
06-02-00   Options for Juveniles;
10-02-00   Annual Solicitors' Association Conference;
10-05-00   South Carolina Truancy Summit;
12-13-00   Nuts and Bolts for In-House State Government Lawyers;

Ms. Streater reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   Moderator, S.C. Bar CLE on Perspective of Victims of Abuse (1995);
(b)   Presenter before the Family Court Judges on a number of occasions: 1998 Regional Trainings on a new risk assessment implemented in the Department of Juvenile Justice;
2002 Family Court Judges Conference on juvenile justice issues;
2004 Orientation for New Family Court Judges on dispositional alternatives in juvenile matters;
(c)   Presenter, ABA Sponsored Conference, Resisting the Abolition of Childhood: In Defense of Children in the Juvenile Court (1999);
(d)   Presenter, Annual Conferences for both Public Defenders and Solicitors on juvenile justice issues (1998);
(e)   Guest lecturer at the University of South Carolina, both at the law school and the College of Criminal Justice (1998 and 2004) and Coker College (2002);
(f)   Guest lecturer for the S.C. Criminal Justice Academy in the areas of child abuse investigations and juvenile procedures;
(g)   As part of my current job duties, I present the annual legal update to DJJ correctional staff and present on Courtroom Presentation and the Children's Code to community staff;

Ms. Streater reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Streater was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:

Ms. Streater reported that she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:

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

Ms. Streater appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:

Ms. Streater was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1989.

Ms. Streater provided the following account of her work experience since graduating from law school:
"November 1997:
The Department of Juvenile Justice Assistant Counsel.

Advised staff on state and federal laws impacting juvenile justice;
Advised the agency on general legal matters;
Represented the agency in employment matters;
Coordinated agency representation in civil actions.
December 1995:
The Department of Social Services, Aiken County, Staff Attorney.

Family Court - Represented the department in all abuse and neglect proceedings;

Common Pleas - Assisted counsel in defending civil actions filed against the Department.
May 1994:
South Carolina Commission on Prosecution Coordination, Special Prosecutor.

General Sessions Court - Prosecuted criminal cases involving special victims;

Advised solicitors and law enforcement on criminal   prosecutions involving special victims.
August 1990:
The Twelfth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office, Assistant Solicitor.

General Sessions - Represented the State in criminal prosecutions;

Common Pleas - Represented the State in drug forfeiture proceedings;

Family Court - Represented the State in abuse and neglect proceedings;

Prosecuted juvenile justice delinquency petitions.
August 1989:
The Honorable C. Anthony Harris, Circuit Court Judge.

Law Clerk, General Sessions and Common Pleas Court."

Ms. Streater reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   0;
(b)   State:     7."

Ms. Streater reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     20%;
(b)   Criminal:   5%;
(c)   Domestic:   75%."

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

Ms. Streater provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Streater's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   The State v. George Lewis, 478 S.E.2d 861 (Ct of Appeals 1996). The defendant was indicted on several counts of sexual abuse while operating a day care facility. At the trial level, this case presented some difficult legal issues, including the competency of young victims, severability and the defendant's 6th Amendment right to confront his accusers. Ultimately, the jury only convicted the defendant with respect to one victim. However, I believe that the trial itself provided the victims' families and the community with some degree of closure despite the verdict. The Court of Appeal's opinion on this case provides an analysis of the law regarding a defendant's rights under the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause balanced against the risk of further trauma to a child victim. The conviction was reversed.
(b)   The State v. Gary Grovenstein, 517 S.E.2d 216 (S.C. Supreme Ct 1999). The defendant was indicted and found guilty of sexually assaulting children. The trial of the case required addressing and explaining complex issues such as delayed reporting of abuse and recantation to a jury. It was significant because the jury was able to process a great deal of testimony regarding the victims' credibility and still return a guilty verdict. This case was appealed on the grounds that the defendant did not receive a fair trial because an alternate juror was accidentally allowed to remain with the jury during a period of deliberation. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. However, the Supreme Court later upheld the conviction.
(c)   The State v. Donnie Wayne Sheffield, 96UP018. The defendant was indicted and convicted for sexually assaulting a young child. This case was ultimately reversed on the issue of the court's admission of a co-conspirator's statements. The child sustained permanent severe injuries from the sexual assault but was not old enough to verbalize how the injuries were sustained. This made prosecution difficult. Because of the mother's complicity, this case highlighted for me

The following is Ms. Streater's account of a civil appeal she has personally handled:
"South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Connie Sevier, Daniel Sevier, Gary Grovenstein, and Bobby Randall, S.C. Court of Appeals, June 30, 1997, UP 97-UP-402."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory found Ms. Streater to be a qualified candidate. The committee approved of her candidacy for the Family Court bench.

Ms. Streater is married to Campbell Laney Streater. She has three children.

Ms. Streater reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   Children's Justice Act (CJA) Task Force

The CJA Task Force was established in accordance with the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 USC 5106c) which authorizes grants to states to develop, establish, and operate programs designed to improve the state's administrative, investigative and judicial handling of child abuse and neglect cases. Eligibility for grants is contingent on the maintenance of an ongoing multi-disciplinary task force that makes recommendations to improve the state's systemic response to child maltreatment;
(b)   S.C. Bar, Children's Law Committee."

Ms. Streater provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Forest Lake Elementary School Educational Foundation, Treasurer 2004-2005;
(b)   Forest Lake Presbyterian Church Childhood Enrichment Center Board;
(c)   Forest Lake Presbyterian Church, Senior High Sunday School Teacher;
(d)   South Carolina Executive Institute Alumni."

Ms. Streater provided the following additional information to the Commission in support of her candidacy:

"I believe that that most important role of the Family Court is determining the best interest of the children in matters before the court. I have devoted my career to issues and problems faced by our State's children. My activities outside of work and family also focus on providing educational and spiritual foundations for children. I believe my experience and passion for the subject uniquely qualify me for this position."

The Commission noted that Ms. Streater is a very diligent and hard-working attorney, all attributes which would benefit the

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 resid ent 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 not made any campaign expend itures.

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.

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; February 2002;
(b)   Organized and participated in School for New Family Court Judges; July 2002;
(c)   Family Court Judges Conference; May 19, 1999;
(d)   Family & Circuit Court Judges Orientation School; June 28, 1999;
(e)   Annual Convention; August 5, 1999;
(f)   Judicial Conference; August 19, 1999;
(g)   Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar; December 3, 1999;
(h)   Family Law Section; January 21, 2000;
(i)   Annual Judicial Conference; August 16, 2000;
(j)   Family Court Judges Conference; May 3, 2000;
(k)   Trial lawyers Convention; August 3, 2000;
(l)   Family Law Bench/Bar; December 1, 2000;
(m)   Family Law Section; January 26, 2001;
(n)   Family Court Judges Conference; May 3, 2001;
(o)   Judicial Ethics Workshop; July 31, 2001;
(p)   Judicial Conference; August 23, 2001;
(q)   Wofford Alumni Attorneys; September 22, 2001;
(r)   Family Court Bench/Bar; December 7, 2001;
(s)   Family Law Section II - Taxes; January 25, 2002;
(t)   Current Issues in the Family Court; February 24, 2002;
(u)   Cool Tips; April 19, 2002;
(v)   Family Court Judges Conference; May 1, 2002;
(w)   Orientation School for New Judges; July 8, 2002;
(x)   Trial Lawyers Convention; August 1, 2002;
(y)   Judicial Conference; August 22, 2002;
(z)   Family Court JCLE; December 6, 2002;
(aa)   Family Law - Part II; January 24, 2003;
(bb)Family Court Judges Conference; April 30, 2003;
(cc)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention; August 7, 2003;
(dd)Judicial Conference; August 21, 2003;
(ee)   Solicitor's Association; September 28, 2003;
(ff)   Family Law; December 5, 2003;
(gg)Judicial Conference; August 18, 2004."

Judge Williams reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   I have lectured at the required S.C. 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.
(c)   I have spoken to USC Law classes about Juvenile Drug Court as a sentencing alternative.
(d)   I have lectured to the Richland Bar 'Lunch and Learn' Program about abuse and neglect matters in Family Court.
(e)   In January 2004, I spoke at the Family Law Seminar of the S.C. Bar meeting."

Judge Williams reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The C ommission'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.

Judge Williams was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982.

Judge Williams reported the following account of his work experience since graduating from law school:
"1982-1995:
General practice of law with primary emphasis on family law and personal injury law;

Scott, Mathews and Williams1982-1991;

Trotter and Williams;
1991-1995:
Part-time Municipal Judge for Irmo, South Carolina;
1995-2004:
South Carolina Family Court Judge;
June 2004 - present:
Judge, South Carolina Court of Appeals."

Judge Williams reported the following concerning his prior judicial experience:
"(a)   Assistant Town Judge, Irmo, S.C.; October 1991 - June 6, 1995; appointed by Town council; jurisdiction limited to Magistrate level, usual offense - traffic;
(b)   S.C. Family Court Judge, Richland County, Seat #1; June 1995 - June 2004; 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)   I have been appointed as a Circuit Judge to preside over Adult Drug Court.
(d)   S.C. Court of Appeals - Appointed as an Acting Judge in case of Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., et al.
(e)   S.C. Court of Appeals, Seat #2, June 2004 - present; jurisdiction includes all appeals from the circuit court and the Family Court except for 7 classes of appeals which must be decided by the Supreme Court."

Judge Williams provided the Commission with the following list of five most significant orders:
"(a)   Bates v. Bates. Opinion No. 97-UP-247; Court of Appeals affirms post-divorce modification of alimony.

Judge Williams reported the following concerning prior unsuccessful judicial candidacies:

"In 1994 I was a candidate for the Family Court. I was found qualified by the S.C. Bar and Joint Committee 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 Joint Commission for Judicial Screening 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 found Judge Williams to be a qualified and highly regarded judge. The committee whole-heartedly approved of his re-election.

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, 1995-2004; Secretary-Treasurer, 1997-1998; President Elect, 1998-1999; President, 1999-2000; Chairman, Family Court Advisory Committee, 2001-2004;
(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:

Judge Williams reported the following additional information in support of his candidacy:

"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 9 years as a Family Court Judge give me a broad range of experience to handle the issues presented to the Court of Appeals."

The Commission found Judge Williams qualified for continued service on the Court of Appeals and nominated him for re-election.

The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:

Honorable Paul E. Short, Jr.           Court of Appeals, Seat 1
Honorable H. Bruce Williams         Court of Appeals, Seat 2
Honorable Brooks P. Goldsmith       Circuit Court for the

Sixth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Frederick A. "Rick" Hoefer, II         Circuit Court for the

Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Michael G. Nettles                   Circuit Court for the

Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Thomas A. Russo                   Circuit Court for the

Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Honorable Steven D. Dennis           Family Court for the

Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Dorothy Mobley Jones               Family Court for the

Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Gwendlyne Y. Smalls                 Family Court for the

Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Honorable Joseph M. "Mickey" Epting     Administrative Law Court,

Seat 2
John D. McLeod                       Administrative Law Court,

Seat 2
Shirley C. Robinson                   Administrative Law Court,

Seat 2
Honorable Carolyn C. Matthews         Administrative Law Court,

Seat 3
Honorable John D. Geathers             Administrative Law Court,

Seat 4

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

The following Bills and Joint Resolutions was/were read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 254 (Word version) -- Senators McGill and Cleary: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 591 OF 1994, RELATING TO THE GEORGETOWN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION, SO AS TO GIVE THE GEORGETOWN LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION THE SOLE APPOINTIVE POWERS FOR MEMBERS OF THE GEORGETOWN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION INSTEAD OF BEING APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE GEORGETOWN COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.

By prior motion of Senator McGILL

At 11:10 A.M., on motion of Senator JACKSON, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, January 18, 2005, at 12:00 Noon.

This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 1:20 P.M.