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:     May 4, 2005

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S. C. Act 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.

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

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 also has 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 believes that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer and believes 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 own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on its assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted.

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

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

The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be

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 or her 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 Circuit Court At-Large Seat 12 and the Family Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1.

The Commission also expresses its thanks to Judicial Fellow Andrew MacLeod for his assistance with the Spring 2005 screening.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Gammons meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Ms. Gammons was born on February 24, 1960. She is 45 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Ms. Gammons 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 1992.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Gammons.

Ms. Gammons 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. Gammons reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Gammons 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. Gammons testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.

Ms. Gammons described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   20th Annual Criminal Law Update, January 2005;
(b)   Government Law Section, January 2005;
(c)   Ethics, January 2005;
(d)   Land Development, Planning, and Zoning Section Workshop, October 3, 2004;
(e)   Mobile Land Use Workshop, October 3, 2004;
(f)   Personnel Law for the Public Employer, October 4, 2004;
(g)   First Amendment, October 4, 2004;
(h)   Litigation and Risk Management, October 4, 2004;
(i)   Inter-District Relationships, October 5, 2004;
(j)   Important Developments in Land Use Law, October 5, 2004;
(k)   Client Relationships-How to Practice Municipal Law, October 6, 2004;
(l)   Attorney's Oath and Ethics, September 10, 2004;
(m)   Judicial Conference-4th Judicial Circuit, June 26, 2003;
(n)   Zoning and Land Use (instructor), July 24, 2003;
(o)   Legal Issues Involving Local Governments, November 7, 2003;
(p)   Ethics (instructor), September 12, 2002;
(q)   Criminal Law Update, January 26, 2001;
(r)   Doing Business with South Carolina Local Government, March 9, 2001;
(s)   2001 Colloquium-The Great Sea Change: Women and the Law in the Twentieth Century, April 19-20, 2001;
(t)   Driving Under the Influence 101-For Law Enforcement Officers and Prosecutors, April 26, 2001;
(u)   Women and the Law-The Study of Legal Issues and an Historical Perspective of Females in the Law Profession, May 2, 2001;
(v)   Greenville County Bar Association Seminar-General Practice Issues, December 7, 2001;

Ms. Gammons reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   Law and Society-South Carolina Governor's School at the College of Charleston:

Intensive four-week program that examines important legal issues that affect most Americans' lives (abortion, physician-assisted suicide, death penalty, same-sex marriage, insanity defense, First Amendment, racial discrimination, gender discrimination); study of case law, Statutes. Students engage in debates, Mock Trials, drafting legislation, and observing real Trials and Guilty Pleas.
(b)   Family Law-Greenville Technical College:

Examination of all aspects of practicing Family Law and the skills and knowledge needed to be an effective paralegal.
(c)   Claims Investigations - Greenville Technical College:

Examination of all aspects of handling a personal injury and the skills and knowledge needed to be an effective paralegal.
(d)   Discovery-Greenville Technical College:

Examination of all areas of Discovery - how to present request information; find information; submit information to the adverse party; obtain information from the adverse party and other sources.
(e)   Ethics-Greenville Association of Legal Assistants Seminar (2 years)

Taught the basics of Ethics; prepared seminar materials.
(f)   Zoning and Land Use-Lorman Education Services Seminar:

The necessary elements of an effective Zoning Ordinance; effective presentation before the Board of Zoning

Ms. Gammons reported that she has no legal publications; however, she has had opinion articles published in various newspapers.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Gammons did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Gammons did not indicate any evidence of a current troubled financial status. The Commission's investigation noted that she currently has financial arrangements with the Internal Revenue Service to pay past due taxes and she is also paying on her husband' s defaulted student loan that she co-signed with him.

The Commission also noted that Ms. Gammons was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with he r diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Ms. Gammons reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. Gammons appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Ms. Gammons appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Gammons was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1992.

Prosecution of criminal cases (average 600 Warrants per year); interviewed Witnesses, Victims, Police Officers, and Pre-Trial Intervention candidates

Attorney, Warlick Law Office, 1993-1994:

General Practice - represented Clients (mainly Plaintiffs); litigated cases (personal injury, medical malpractice, child custody, divorce, criminal defense).

Law Partner, Daniels and Gammons, Attorneys at Law, 1994-1997:

General Practice - represented Clients (Plaintiffs and Defendants); litigated civil and criminal cases (including, but not limited to, Workers' Compensation, personal injury, contract disputes, criminal defense).

Assistant City Attorney, City of Greenville, South Carolina, 1997-present:

Prosecute criminal cases (average 1070 Warrants/Tickets per year); manage and litigate civil cases; draft briefs; research law; litigate Appeals (civil and criminal); manage cases of employee misconduct or employee grievances; advise City Departments; advise Board of Zoning Appeals, Risk Management Team, Civil Service Commission; negotiate and manage certain contracts (particularly, the Humane Society for Animal Control, Police Duty Wrecker Service), handle Business License Revocations. "

Ms. Gammons provided the following information relative to her experience in criminal and civil matters:
"Criminal Matters: Prosecution of criminal cases since working in the Solicitor's Office in Charleston; these cases involved driving offenses, including Felony Driving Under the Influence, Assault and Battery, Lynching, Criminal Domestic Violence; City cases include Assault and Battery, Disorderly Conduct, Driving Under the Influence, 1st offense, Shoplifting,

While in private practice, I defended those accused of crimes (Driving Under the Influence, Section 1983 actions against police officers for use of excessive force, Assault and Battery, Drug cases).

Civil Matters: As Assistant City Attorney, I handle cases involving allegations of wrongdoing of police officers (use of excessive force, false arrest, Section 1983 actions). I litigate the Zoning Appeals, allegations of the unlawful denial of a Building Permit; allegations of Freedom of Information Act violations; and personal injury and property damage actions against a City employee. I also litigate the Vehicle Confiscation and Forfeiture cases; appear before the Employment Security Commission for unemployment compensation disputes; appear before the Administrative Law Court requesting denial of Alcohol Permits.

While in private practice, I handled divorces, child custody, child support, and adoption cases. I also handled medical malpractice, 'slip and fall,' breach of contract, and personal injury cases."

Ms. Gammons reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   federal:   0;
(b)   state:     6 times per year."

Ms. Gammons reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   civil:     10%;
(b)   criminal:   90%;
(c)   domestic:   0%."

Ms. Gammons reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   jury:     10%;
(b)   non-jury:   90%."

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

The following is Ms. Gammons' account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Massey v. City of Greenville, 341 S.C. 193, 532 S.E.2d 885 (Ct. App. 2000). Plaintiff alleged the Board of Zoning Appeals was erroneous in its denial of her request for a Special Exception. Significance - First case I argued before the Court of Appeals. I enjoyed the research and writing the brief. I also enjoyed the oral arguments.

(b)   Chapman v. Troup, Case Number: 2003-CP-23-6006. Plaintiff alleged that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated pursuant to Section 1983 and he was falsely arrested without probable cause by City Detective. Significance - This was a 2-day Jury Trial and the presiding Judge ruled against me at almost every turn. He even admitted his error in sustaining a substantial objection by Plaintiff' s attorney. But I won.

(c)   Foster v. City of Greenville, Case Number: 1996-CP-23-1399. Plaintiff alleged that City wrongfully denied him a Building Permit. Significance - This was a Jury Trial that I had to handle after working for City for only a few weeks; I did not have a great deal of time to prepare. I won the case.

(d)   City v. Watson. Defendant was charged with Simple Possession of Marijuana. Significance - Defendant was an outstanding football player at the University of South Carolina and a prospect for the National Football

(e)   Civil case while I was in private practice (I do not recall my client's or Defendant's names.)

Plaintiff (my client) alleged that Defendant (Sheriff's Deputy) used excessive force in arresting Plaintiff. Significance - During the discovery phase, I deposed then Sheriff, Johnny Mack Brown. During questioning, he jumped up out his chair as if he were going to hit me. I calmly stood up and requested that he answer my question and behave like an adult and a professional. He behaved as though I was supposed to be afraid of him because I was young and a female. I stood my ground and we finished the deposition. When we went to Court the Defense made a reasonable offer but my client refused it; I did not win the case."

The following is Ms. Gammons' account of civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   Massey v. City of Greenville, South Carolina Court of Appeals, June 12, 2000, 341 S.C. 193, 532 S.E.2d 885 (Ct. App. 2000).

(b)   Acker v. City of Greenville, et al., Greenville County Court of Common Pleas (Appeal of the Business License Administrator's decision), Case Number: 2002-CP-23-7239, order signed June 15, 2004.

(d)   Mauldin Investments, Incorporated v. City of Greenville, Greenville County Court of Common Pleas (Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision), Case Number: 2001-CP-23-4728, order signed December 30, 2003."

Ms. Gammons reported that she was an unsuccessful candidate for the South Carolina State Senate, Senate District 7 in the years 2000 and 2004.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Gammons' temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Ms. Gammons "meets, but does not exceed, expectations as a circuit court candidate."

Ms. Gammons is married to Brian Lee McQueen. She has one child.

Ms. Gammons reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   Greenville County Bar Association, Secretary, 2004-present;
(b)   Greenville County Bar Association, Treasurer, 2003-2004;
(c)   South Carolina Bar Association, Board of Governors, 2004-present;
(d)   South Carolina Bar Association, House of Delegates, 2004-present;
(e)   American Bar Association;
(f)   Municipal Lawyers Association of South Carolina;
(g)   International Municipal Lawyers Association;
(h)   South Carolina Women's Lawyer Association, Regional Representative, 2000;

Ms. Gammons provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Centre Stage South Carolina! Board of Directors;
(b)   Greenview Elementary School Volunteer Tutor;
(c)   Planned Parenthood Board of Directors;
(d)   Alliance for Community Trust Board of Directors;
(e)   College of Charleston Board of Trustees;
(f)   Greenville Literacy Board of Directors; volunteer teaching English as a Second Language;
(g)   South Carolina Bar Mock Trial Competition, District Coordinator, 1998-present;
(h)   Community Law Week Committee, Chairperson, 1996-present;
(i)   Youth Court, Presiding Judge, 2003-present;
(j)   Carolina Ballet Theatre Board of Directors;
(k)   Neighborhood Housing Corporation Board of Directors."

Ms. Gammons further provided: "I am fair, trustworthy, and assertive. I have always worked to improve society; and to encourage people to set goals and work to reach their goals. I believe that all people are created equally. I treat people with respect, even those with whom I disagree. I am an attorney who has worked on all four sides of our system - I have prosecuted criminals; defended those accused of committing crimes; brought actions on behalf of Plaintiffs in civil cases; and defended Defendants in civil cases. Because of my experience, I am better able to serve as a fair Judge capable of rendering the best decisions."

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.

Mr. Hoefer described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   03/26-27/04   National Conf. of Bar Examiners, NCBE;
(b)   05/05/04     Ethics GAL Cases, WCBA;
(c)   01/24/03     Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar;
(d)   03/21/03     Accident Litigation, LBCI;
(e)   06/13-14/03   Bar Examiners Workshop, NCBE;
(f)   09/05/03     Difficult Clients, SCACDL;
(g)   09/19/03     Hot Tips-Domestic, S.C. Bar;
(h)   09/27/02     SC Tort Law Update, S.C. Bar;
(i)   10/18/02     Ethical Issues/Appointed Cases, FCBA;
(j)   12/13/02     Tips From The Bench, S.C. Bar;
(k)   01/26/01     Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar;
(l)   10/26/01     Legal Ethics3, FCBA;
(m)   01/21/00     Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar;
(n)   10/20/00     Ethics, FCBA;
(o)   01/22/99     Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar;
(p)   05/14/99     Cumulative Wisdom, SCACDL;
(q)   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), October 31, 2003.
(e)   Williamsburg County Bar Association (Ethics in Guardian ad litem appointments), May 5, 2004."

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

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

Mr. Hoefer reported that he was a member of the State of South Carolina Ethics Commission from September 1992 to June 1998. He chaired the Commission from December 1993 to June 1998. He was appointed by the Governor with the 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. He gave the following account of his legal 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.

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."

He provided the following additional information relative to his experience in circuit court:

"My criminal practice is approximately 40% of my total practice. In such matters I prosecuted for 5 years, as an assistant solicitor in my circuit and have defended for the past 17 years. I am certified to represent clients in cases involving the death penalty. I routinely represent criminal defendants in the Summary Courts, Family Courts, General Sessions and Federal Courts. Over the past five years, I have represented clients charged with offenses ranging from assault and battery and driving under the influence to serious felony offenses including car-jacking, armed robbery, criminal sexual conduct, drug trafficking and capital murder.

I have practiced in the civil courts for approximately 17 years. My civil practice includes family law, personal injury, worker's compensation, and general litigation matters. I also regularly handle real estate transactions. Over the past five years, I have represented defendants in property disputes, debt matters and personal injury matters. However, I primarily represent plaintiffs in such matters or claimants in worker's compensation matters. I also represent respondents before the State Ethics Commission."

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:
"(a)   civil:     30%;

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 reported 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 Roosevelt Baccus, 00-GS-33-004. Case noticed as a death penalty case, tried as murder/burglary; client convicted, 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. Drug trafficking, convictions vacated.

(e)   State v. Jack Sweat, 91-GS-21-770. Murder, client acquitted."

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

Mr. Hoefer provided the following list of criminal appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   State v. Lorenzo Labelle Jones and Melvin Patrick Riles, 342 S.C. 121, 536 S.E. 2d 675 (S. Ct. 2000).

(b)   State v. Lorenzo Labelle Jones and Melvin Patrick Riles, 331 S.C. 228, 500 S.E.2d 499 (S.C. App. 1998), cert. granted 1999."

Mr. Hoefer reported the following unsuccessful candidacies:
"Candidate for United States Magistrate Judge, Florence Division (1998);
Family Court Seat #3, Twelfth Judicial Circuit (2004);
Circuit Court Seat #1, Twelfth Judicial Circuit (2005)."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Hoefer's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Mr. Hoefer "is qualified for election to the Circuit Court." The committee recommended Mr. Hoefer without reservation.

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;
(c)   First Presbyterian Church, Sunday school teacher."

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 50 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 questioned Mr. Russo about a letter of introduction dated (February 8, 2005) sent by him to members of the General Assembly on letterhead of the Solicitor of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit. Although Mr. Russo testified that he paid the Solicitor's Office for the stationery and paid for the postage, he did not include a disclaimer in the letter noting that. Furthermore, even though the letter did not specifically state that the Solicitor endorsed Mr. Russo, the use of the Solicitor' s letterhead might give the appearance of the Solicitor's endorsement. Mr. Russo apologized for the misimpression the letterhead might give and appeared to grasp the seriousness of the Commission's inquiry into its use.

Mr. Russo reported that he has made $197.40 in campaign expenditures for postage and stationery.

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.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
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 2005;
(b)   S.C. Bar Annual Criminal Law Update, January 2004;
(c)   Training Beginning Westlaw, January 2004;
(d)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 2003;
(e)   S.C. Bar Annual Criminal Law Update, January 2002;
(f)   NCDA Career Prosecutor Course, June 2002;
(g)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 2002;
(h)   SCCPC DUI 101: For Law Enforcement, March 2001;
(i)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 2001;
(j)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 2000;
(k)   S.C. Solicitors Association Conference, September 1999;
(l)   NCDA Prosecuting Homicide Cases, November 1999."

"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.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Russo reported: "I am not currently listed in Martindale-Hubbell. I can only assume this is because I have not registered with their directory and/or purchased any of their services."
(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.

Mr. Russo gave the following account of his experience since graduation from 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; Admi nistrative 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
2nd 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 3 counties.

November 1993 to October 1995
Law Office of Ronald A. Maxwell, Aiken, S.C.

General Civil Practice; Trials in all State and Federal Courts; Automobile Accident; Personal Injury; Workers Compensation; Products Liability; Wrongful Death Law.

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

12th Circuit Solicitors Office, Florence, S.C.

Deputy Solicitor focusing on violent crimes and drug cases. 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% (My prior private practice was about 65%);
(b)   criminal:   100% (My prior private practice was about 30%);
(c)   domestic:   0% (My prior private practice was about 5%)."

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 reported that he most often served as sole and/or chief counsel.

The following is Mr. Russo's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Manuel Acosta, Indictment #01-GS-21-002. Jury Trial. GUILTY. 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, Indictment #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 not guilty on both counts. What was so interesting in this case was Mr. Kennedy actually gave a full written confession to law enforcement and wrote and sent a letter of apology to the victims while he was in jail awaiting disposition of his case. I was able to successfully argue to the Court that the written confession and the letter to the victim were inadmissible based on faulty Miranda warnings on the confession and failure to authenticate and produce a valid chain of evidence on the letter. Essentially, even though I had a client who was guilty, I was able to create a reasonable doubt to the jury by not putting my client on the stand nor putting up any case and just attack the State's case and the careless police work which was done.

(e)   Donnel Cummings v. Roger Boyd Stuart, Case #101-4772-F. Jury Trial. Verdict for Plaintiff (State of Georgia, Chatham County Superior Court). 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 1st plaintiffs 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

The following is Mr. Russo's account of a civil appeal he has personally handled:
"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, Inc., Defendants , in the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard January 21, 1991 and Decided February 4, 1991, 303 S.C. 388, 401 S.E.2d 155."

Mr. Russo reported that he was a candidate for the resident Circuit Court Seat for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in the fall of 2004.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
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." The committee recommended Mr. Russo without reservation.

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 organizations:

Mr. Russo further provided: "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 structure of the rules. When a rule is violated, I have been required to quickly recognize the infraction, apply the rule and correct the mistake. I have done this while treating both players and coaches with calmness, respect and professionalism. When you think about the trial courtroom, it is not much different, in theory, from what I am required to do on Friday nights. The judge is the Head Referee and the attorneys and litigants are the players and coaches. There are rules that apply and all parties must compete within those rules. Should one side violate a rule of the trial court, the judge is required to quickly spot the infraction, apply the rule and correct the mistake. Staying focused, alert and having a deep working understanding of the rules and knowing how to professionally treat the people who are participating in the contest is as critical in the courtroom for a trial judge as they are for a head referee on Friday night. And last but certainly not least, I have had more trial experience, at least in criminal court, than most attorneys who seek judgeships that have limited their practices to the civil side of law. Having been both a Public Defender and a Solicitor has given me invaluable trial experience. Just being in volume of jury trials that I have been in, even though mainly in criminal court, is a huge benefit in sitting as a trial judge whether it be a civil or criminal case."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Wilson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Judge Wilson was born on August 13, 1955. She is 49 years old and a resident of Conway, South Carolina. Judge Wilson 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 1981.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Wilson.

Judge Wilson 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 Wilson reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.

Judge Wilson 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 Wilson testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.

Judge Wilson described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   2000/4/3-7     S.C. Court Administration School for Magistrates and Municipal Judges;
(b)   2000/9/6-8     Summary Court Association's Seminar for Judges;
(c)   2001/1/26     Criminal Law Update;
(d)   2001/5/23     DUI 101;
(e)   2001/9/6     S.C. Summary Court;
(f)   2002/8/8     DUI Trial Advocacy;
(g)   2002/10/22     Contracts with Employees;
(h)   2002/9/4-8     Summary Court Advanced Studies;
(i)   2002/9/4-8     Summary Court Judges' Seminar;
(j)   2003/8/5     Fees & Assessments Seminar;
(k)   2003/9/29     DUI Trial Advocacy;
(l)   2003/9/4     Summary Court Judges Seminar;
(m)   2004/9/8-11   Summary Court Judges Seminar."

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

Judge Wilson reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Wilson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Wilson did not indicate any evidence of a current troubled financial status.

The Commission also noted that Judge Wilson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the

Judge Wilson provided the following account of her experience since graduation from law school:
"I worked at Neighborhood Legal Assistance in Beaufort, S.C. 1980-81. However, I did not make any court appearances until after I was admitted to the bar on May 14, 1981. Prior to that date, I performed paralegal duties.

1980-81:   Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Beaufort, South Carolina. Represented indigent defendants in Family Court, Court of Common Pleas, and administrative agencies.

1981-82:   Law Clerk to the Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Sumter, South Carolina. Assisted the Court in civil and criminal matters. Prepared orders and other research materials.

1982-83:   Palmetto Legal Services, Orangeburg, South Carolina. Represented indigent defendants in Family Court, Court of Common Pleas, and administrative agencies.

1983-85:   Department of Health and Environmental Control, General Counsel's Office, Columbia, South Carolina. Represented the Department before the Board, hearing officers and the Court of Common Pleas.

1986-88:   Horry County Public Defender's Office, Conway, South Carolina. Represented indigent defendants in General Sessions Court, including numerous felony cases.

1988-89:   Kelaher, Bass & Connell, PA, Surfside Beach, South Carolina. Associate in major law firm. Handled family court, civil and criminal cases.

1989-92:   Fifteenth Circuit Solicitor's Office, Conway, South Carolina. Prosecuted felony cases in General Sessions Court. Became chief drug prosecutor for Horry and Georgetown counties.

1992-95:   PPM Cranes, Inc., Conway, South Carolina. Counsel for manufacture of mobile cranes. Major responsibility was to monitor product liability litigation nationwide. Hired and supervised local counsel, prepared discovery requests, attended all mediations, settlement conferences and trials. Made recommendations to the CEO and CFO of settlements.

1995-2000:   Jennifer Peters, Attorney at Law, Conway, South Carolina. Solo family, civil and criminal practice.

2000-present:   Chief Judge for the Myrtle Beach Municipal Court, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Responsible for court system and staff; preside over bench trials, jury trials, preliminary hearings, and bond hearing for all felony cases except murder and burglary first degree. Instituted night court hired first courtroom security officer with metal detector."

Judge Wilson further reported regarding her criminal and civil experience:

As for my civil experience, I was counsel for a major crane company for four years where I supervised their product liability litigation in the United States. While I did not actually try the cases, I attended and participated in discovery, attended and participated in all settlement conferences, mediations and trials. The company was self-insured for one million dollars. I also tried numerous civil cases while in private practice representing both plaintiffs and defendants. My civil practice consisted mostly of personal injury work on the plaintiff's side. During my time with legal aid and with DHEC, I appeared in civil court as well."

Judge Wilson reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years prior to her appointment to the bench as follows:
"(a)   federal:   0;
(b)   state:     Bi-monthly."

Judge Wilson reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to her appointment to the bench as follows:
"(a)   civil:     20%;
(b)   criminal:   35%;
(c)   domestic:   45%."

Judge Wilson reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years prior to her appointment to the bench as follows:
"(a)   jury:     20%;
(b)   non-jury:   80%."

Judge Wilson provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Wilson's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Louis Barlow. This was my only capital case as a defense attorney. Mr. Barlow was charged with armed robbery and murder of an eighty-year-old woman. He stabbed her thirty-two times with a ballpoint pen. During the trial, the solicitor offered him a plea to a life sentence. This was significant because it was my first death penalty case.

(b)   State v. Cleveland Eaddy. I prosecuted this death penalty case with the deputy solicitor. Mr. Eaddy was sentenced to life. It was significant because it was my only death penalty case as a prosecutor.

(c)   Michael Burgess v. Valerie Bradley. This was a highly contested custody matter where my client prevailed. The defendant appealed and it was dismissed.

(d)   State v. 'Top Cat' Richard Allen. 'Top Cat' was known as a major drug dealer. He was convicted of trafficking cocaine and sentenced to 25 years.

(e)   United States Marine Corp. v. James Smith. This sergeant was charged with raping another marine's wife. I represented him at an Article 31 hearing before the Judge Advocate General in Paris Island. The charges were dismissed. It was significant to me because I learned so much about military procedures and law."

Judge Wilson reported: "I was appointed on December 28, 1999 by the Myrtle Beach City Council to serve as full time Chief Judge for the Municipal Court for a four-year term. I was reappointed in January 2004 for a second four-year term. We have jurisdiction in

Judge Wilson is married to Ralph James Wilson. She has two children and two stepchildren.

Judge Wilson reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   South Carolina Summary Court Judges Association;
(c)   National Bar Association;
(d)   Horry County Bar Association."

Judge Wilson provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Conway Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.;
(b)   Board of Directors for the Horry County Chapter of the American Heart Association;
(c)   Conway Chapter of Jack and Jill of America, Inc.;
(d)   Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Conway."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Gibbons meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Mr. Gibbons was born on November 24, 1966. He is 38 years old and a resident of Chester, South Carolina. Mr. Gibbons 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 1992.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Gibbons.

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

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

Mr. Gibbons described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I normally attend more than required each year, typically the "Hot Tips" seminars relating to family law, the Municipal

Family Law courses and an Employment Law seminar (2004)."

Mr. Gibbons reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:
"I spoke at the December 2003 Municipal Attorneys Association seminar on the status of invocations at municipal council meetings in light of the federal courts' rulings against the Town of Great Falls, South Carolina. I am the town attorney."

Mr. Gibbons reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Gibbons did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Gibbons did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Gibbons has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

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

Town Attorney for Great Falls from1997 to the present."
All of the above positions were appointed.

(6)   Physical Health:

Mr. Gibbons appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Gibbons appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Gibbons was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1992. The following is his account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Associate, Hamilton, Hamilton & Delleney, PA

August 1992 - December 1993.

Partner, Hamilton, Delleney & Gibbons, PA

1994 - Present.

City Attorney, Chester

1994 - 2000.

Town Attorney, Great Falls

1997 - Present.

Town Attorney, Fort Lawn

1998 - January 2005.

I have been involved in a general practice law firm since coming to Chester out of law school. I have primarily practiced in the areas of family law, criminal, and personal injury for the last twelve years. I have practiced in bankruptcy court and have represented clients in civil litigation in common

Mr. Gibbons provided the following additional information relative to his experience in Family Court:

"DIVORCE AND EQUITABLE DIVISION:

I have litigated every ground of divorce so I am familiar with the standards of proof needed to sustain such grounds. This past year I handled numerous adultery, habitual drunkenness, and physical cruelty cases. Many clients end up getting divorced on one year's separation or just get separated with a decree of separate maintenance and support. I have drafted numerous separation agreements as well. All of these actions included dividing property and debts of some kind. I have handled valuation of bu siness cases, large asset (both tangible and non-tangible) cases, construction company cases, farm cases, and residential and commercial property cases. I have also handled military retirement issues and have drafted numerous QDROS. I am currently handling approximately 200 active Family Court matters. I am also a certified Family Court mediator.

CHILD CUSTODY:

I have represented mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. in custody cases over the last 12 years. I have also represented guardians ad litem and have been a guardian myself in too many cases to list. I just recently tried a modification of custody case where I represented the relocating mother. This is a developing area of Family Law right now. The mother received a directed verdict in her favor. I am also involved in a derivative grandparent visitation case right now pending in York County Family Court along with numerous other custody cases. I also mediate custody cases.

ADOPTION:

I just did an adult adoption two weeks ago. I have handled adoptions through DSS as well as private adoptions, representing grandparents, stepparents, and new parents. I am very familiar with this area of family law.

ABUSE AND NEGLECT:

I just tried a DSS TPR case in January where I represented the mother. I have handled all the court appointments in abuse and neglect cases for our firm for the past 12 years. I have represented all facets of these type cases, from the parents to the children to the possible placement for the children. Every term of court I am involved with these cases, from probable cause hearings to merits to reviews to permanency planning hearings, and even eventual TPRs, if the parents do not complete their treatment plans. I am very familiar with this area of family law.

JUVENILE JUSTICE:

As with abuse and neglect appointments, I have handled all the juvenile appointments for our firm for the past 12 years or so in addition to retained cases. A good portion of my practice has always been criminal defense. I have represented juveniles on status offenses and major offenses where they were facing commitment, not just R&E. I am very familiar with this area of family law."

Mr. Gibbons reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   federal:   Several cases with associated counsel. U.S. Court of Appeals in June 2004, Cert. Pending in U.S. Supreme Court;
(b)   state:     Weekly, anywhere from magistrate to family to common pleas to general sessions. Case pending in Court of Appeals. "

Mr. Gibbons reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   civil:     10%;
(b)   criminal:   20%;
(c)   domestic:   70%."

Mr. Gibbons reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

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

The following is Mr. Gibbons' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Wagner v. Wagner. Family Court case which went all the way up to South Carolina Supreme Court. Won every step of the way. Had numerous contempt hearings. Client was awarded significant amounts of real estate and custody. SCDSS became intertwined as well. Significant because just about all areas of family law were covered in this one case. Everything was contested. Husband had to be ruled in for contempt on numerous occasions. SCDSS got involved with abuse and neglect issues. Per curiam unpublished decisions in both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court in favor of client.

(b)   Ford v. McNulty. Grandparent visitation case pending in York County Family Court. Deals with novel issue of derivative rights of maternal grandparents to their grandchildren when their daughter, the children's mother, is deceased. Father refuses any contact at all. Troxel case and recent S.C. case law does not answer the question. Potentially precedent setting.

(c)   Toth v. Toth. Significant equitable apportionment case just settled. Dealt with valuation of a construction company where the husband was the sole shareholder. Both parties had CPAs attempting to value the business, which was difficult because without the husband, there was no business. Matter was litigated for three years and involved almost all areas of domestic practice.

(d)   Town of Fort Lawn v. LRF, Budget and Control Board. The town was sued by its ex-police chief on both a contract theory and tort theory. Town's carrier refused to cover alleging contractual in nature. We sued in a declaratory judgment action and won the case. LRF had to provide coverage, hired

(e) State of South Carolina v. Camille Hankins. I tried this case back in 1995. My client was charged with cruelty to animals. She had in excess of 80 dogs and cats in her house. A representative of PETA charged her and we had a day long trial in magistrate's court in front of a jury. Significant for the intense media scrutiny, both regional and national with PETA. Client convicted, received a small fine and last I heard is still rescuing animals in North Carolina.
(f) Kirby v. Kirby. Client was awarded temporary custody of the children and received unallocated support of approximately $2,500 per month, use of a new suburban (husband was a car dealer) and use of the home. After two and one-half years, client received very favorable settlement where she got the house and all equity and significant child support. Husband's claims of adultery on part of wife were successfully defended and case settled."

The following is Mr. Gibbons' account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Wagner v. Wagner, S.C. Supreme Court, S.C. Court of Appeals. Per Curiam Unpublished Decisions. Ended May 2000;

(b)   Scott v. Scott, S.C. Court of Appeals. Unpublished;

(c)   Ewing v. Ewing, S.C. Court of Appeals. Unpublished;

(d)   Sladek v. Sladek, Pending In Court of Appeals;

(e)   Adkins v. Piedmont Medical Center, settled In U.S. Court of Appeals."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Gibbons' temperament would be excellent.

Mr. Gibbons is married to Lorena C. Gibbons. He has three children.

Mr. Gibbons reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   S.C. Bar Association;

Sixth Circuit Representative, Young Lawyers Division;
(b)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association-Board of Governors, Sixth Circuit Representative;
(c)   Chester County Bar-Secretary/Treasurer;
(d)   Municipal Attorneys Association."

Mr. Gibbons provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Chester Rotary Club, Past President, Paul Harris Fellow;
(b)   Chester YMCA Board, Past President;
(c)   Chester/Fairfield Citadel Club, Past President, Secretary/Treasurer;
(d)   Blackstock Bluegrass, Inc., Past President;
(e)   The Citadel Alumni Association;
(f)   Richard Winn Academy, Board Member;
(g)   Palmetto Boys State Staff;
(h)   Board of Deacons, Chester ARP Church, Chairman."

Mr. Gibbons additionally reported: "I have always been very involved in my church and community. I coach all of my children in their various sports."

Commission member F.G. Delleney, Jr. recused himself during the screening testimony of Mr. Gibbons and abstained from voting on his nomination as a judicial candidate.

The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:

Debra J. Gammons             Circuit Court At-Large Seat 12

Frederick A. "Rick" Hoefer II     Circuit Court At-Large Seat 12

Thomas A. Russo               Circuit Court At-Large Seat 12

Brian M. Gibbons               Family Court, 6th Judicial Circuit,

Seat 1

At 11:10 A.M., on motion of Senator JACKSON, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, May 10, 2005, under the provisions and limitations of Rule 1B.

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