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 SETZLER.

Date Draft Report Issued:             Thursday, May 4, 2006
Date and Time Final Report Issued:     12:00 Noon on

Tuesday, May 9,   2006

Dear Members of the General Assembly:

Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's report of candidate qualifications. This report is designed to assist you in determining how to cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with ascertaining whether judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench. In accordance with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated all judicial candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The Commission found all candidates discussed in this report to be qualified.

The Commission's finding that a candidate is qualified means that the candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office and the Commission's evaluative criteria. The attached report details each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria.

Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 noon on Tuesday, May 9, 2006. Members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate's qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until Tuesday, May 9, 2006. In sum, no member of the General Assembly should, orally or by writing, communicate about a candidate's candidacy until the time designated after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's report of candidate qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report, please contact the Commission office at 212-6092.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
James H. Ritchie, Jr., Vice-Chairman

Dear Fellow Members:

This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial candidate's contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third parties contacting members on a candidate's behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Spring 2006 screening.

Section 2-19-70(C) of the South Carolina Code contains strict prohibitions concerning candidates seeking or legislators giving their pledges of support or implied endorsement through an introduction prior to 48 hours after the release of the final report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (Commission). The purpose of this section was to ensure that members of the General Assembly had full access to the report prior to being asked by a candidate to pledge his or her support. The final sentence of Section 2-19-70(C) provides that "the prohibitions of this section do not extend to an announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the candidate detailing the candidate's qualifications" (emphasis added). Candidates may not, however, contact members of the Commission regarding their candidacy; please note that six members of the Commission also are legislators.

In April 2000, the Commission determined that Section 2-19-70(C) means no member of the General Assembly should engage in any form of communication, written or verbal, concerning a judicial candidate before the 48-hour period expires following the release of the Commission's report. The Commission would like to clarify and reiterate that until at least 48 hours have expired after the Commission has released its final report of candidate qualifications to the General Assembly, only candidates, and not members of the General Assembly, are permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, or statements detailing the candidates' qualifications.

The Commission would again like to remind members of the General Assembly that a violation of the screening law is likely a disqualifying offense and must be considered when determining a candidate's fitness for judicial office. Further, the law requires the Commission to report any violations of the pledging rules by members of the General Assembly to the House or Senate Ethics Committee, as may be applicable.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter or any other matter pertaining to the judicial screening process, please do not hesitate to call Jane O. Shuler, Chief Counsel to the Commission, at 212-6629.

Sincerely,
F.G. Delleney, Jr.               James H. Ritchie, Jr.
Chairman                     Vice-Chairman

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 own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.

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

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

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

Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the canons, etc. is his completed and sworn questionnaire.

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

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and a public hearing. 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 and Administrative Law Court.

The Commission also expresses its thanks to Judicial Fellows: Amelia Goulding, Chad Alexander Mitchell, and R. Douglas Webb for their assistance with the Spring 2006 screening.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. J. Michelle Childs meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. Childs was born on March 24, 1966. She is 40 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Childs 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. Childs.
Ms. Childs 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. Childs reported that she has made $50 in campaign expenditures on paper, envelopes, and postage.
Ms. Childs 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. Childs 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. Childs to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Childs described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   January 27, 2006, 21st Annual Criminal Law Update (SC Bar);
(b)   November 18, 2005, 15th Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina (SC Bar);
(c)   October 23, 2005, 29th Annual Conference on Workers' Compensation (SC Workers' Compensation Educational Association);
(d)   October 21, 2005, The Promise of Voter Equality: Examining the Voting Rights Act at 40 (SC Bar);
(e)   September 20, 2005, South Carolina Legal History (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court);
(f)   August 29, 2005, An Overview of the Code of Judicial Conduct and The Ethics Reform Act (SC State Ethics Commission);
(g)   August 26, 2005, SC Workers' Compensation Update (SC Bar);
(h)   August 5-6, 2005, SC Workers' Compensation Law (SC Trial Lawyers Association);
(i)   July 28, 2005, SC Workers' Compensation Law (SC Defense Trial Attorneys' Association);
(j)   May 6, 2005, Annual Spring Seminar (Association of SC Claimant Attorneys For Workers' Compensation);
(k)   February 26, 2005, Medical Seminar (SC Workers' Compensation Educational Association);
(l)   February 22, 2005, Tort Reform or Torts Deformed: A Primer on Pending Legislation and Its Possible Effects (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court);
(m)   January 22, 2005, Tort & Insurance Practice (SC Bar);
(n)   January 1, 2005, Bar Examiner Credit (SC Supreme Court);
(o)   November 5-6, 2004, SC Workers' Compensation Law (Association of SC Claimant Attorneys for Workers' Compensation);
(p)   November 5, 2004, Revised Lawyer's Oath (Association of SC Claimant Attorneys for Workers' Compensation);
(q)   August 5-8, 2004, SC Workers' Compensation Law (SC Trial Attorneys' Association);
(r)   August 5, 2004, New Lawyer's Oath (SC Supreme Court);
(s)   July 23-24, 2004, SC Workers' Compensation Law (SC Defense Trial Lawyers' Association);
(t)   July 16, 2004, SC Workers' Compensation Law (SC Bar);
(u)   January 20, 2004, Pros and Cons of Tort Reform (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court);
(v)   January 1, 2004, Bar Examiner Credit (SC Supreme Court);
(w)   October 20, 2003, SC Workers' Compensation Law (SC Workers' Compensation Educational Association);
(x)   July 25, 2003, SC Workers' Compensation Law (SC Defense Trial Attorneys' Association);
(y)   May 30, 2003, SC Workers' Compensation Law (SC Bar);
(z)   March 19-20, 2003, Equal Employment Opportunity Law (American Bar Association);
(aa)   February 25, 2003, Ethical Considerations (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court);
(bb)   January 28, 2003, Legal Jeopardy (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court);
(cc)   January 1, 2003, Bar Examiner Credit (SC Supreme Court);
(dd)   October 29, 2002, Sealing of Court Records (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court);
(ee)   May 21, 2002, SC Labor and Employment Law (SC Bar);
(ff)   May 16, 2002, Spring Conference (American Bar Association);
(gg)   May 3, 2002, 5th Annual Spring Seminar (Association of SC Claimant)
(hh)   Attorneys for Workers' Compensation;
(ii)   April 26, 2002, South Carolina Women Lawyers' Association CLE Program (SC Bar);
(jj)   April 5, 2002, Medicare Issues in Workers' Compensation (SC Bar);
(kk)   March 20, 2002, Equal Employment Opportunity Law (American Bar Association);
(ll)   January 14, 2002, Ethical Issues (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court);
(mm)   December 22, 2001, Professionalism in the Real World (SC Bar);
(nn)   October 19, 2001, 17th Annual NC/SC Labor and Employment Law Conference;
(oo)   October 10, 2001, Does A Difference Make A Difference? (SC Bar);
(pp)   October 9, 2001, The New Federal Rules (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court);
(qq)   May 11, 2001, Young Lawyers Division Spring Conference (American Bar Association);
(rr)   March 28, 2001, Employment and Labor Law (SC Bar);
(ss)   March 22, 2001, The Art of Argument (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court);
(tt)   February 1, 2001, Young Lawyers Division Seminar (SC Bar);
(uu)   February 16, 2001, Young Lawyers Division Seminar (American Bar Association);
(vv)   January 26, 2001, Young Lawyers Division Seminar, Employment and Labor Law (SC Bar);
(ww)   January 25, 2001, Access to Justice (SC Bar);
(xx)   January 16, 2001, Appellate Advocacy (John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court).
"I enjoy attending CLE courses to improve my knowledge in various areas of the law. Each year I exceed the required number of CLE hours and carry over a substantial number of CLE hours into the next year."
Ms. Childs reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"During my employment at Nexsen Pruet Law Firm, I routinely spoke to various organizations and groups and lectured at several CLEs and seminars on a variety of employment law issues (the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII, Age Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Workers' Compensation, the Fair Labor Standards Act, employment at-will, employment policies and procedures, general employment law issues) and have written materials on various employment law topics. I have also assisted in the preparation of two employment-related manuals: (1) "The South Carolina Employer's Legal Reference Manual," and, (2) "The South Carolina Public Employer's Legal Reference Guide." (Center for Governance-Institute of Public Affairs).
As the Deputy Director of the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation's Division of Labor, I spoke on various topics related to wages and child labor, occupational safety and health, and compliance issues. Additionally, as a Workers ' Compensation Commissioner, I have participated on numerous panels discussing the law and issues related to the practice of workers ' compensation law.
I taught seminars on the applicability of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, sexual harassment law, and interviewing skills in the Practical Legal Training Schools in Capetown, Johannesburg, and Pretoria, South Africa in September 1998 and March 2001."
Ms. Childs reported that she has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Childs did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Childs did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Childs has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Childs 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. Childs reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
Ms. Childs reported that she held public offices as follows:
"I have been a board member of the Midlands Authority for Conventions, Sports, and Tourism since 1999. I currently serve as secretary for the Board. I was appointed to the Board as a representative for the City of Columbia. I was elected to the position of secretary by the Board. I do not have to file an ethics report for this position.
I was appointed by Governor James Hodges as the Deputy Director of the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation 's Division of Labor in 2000 for an unfinished term that expired in 2002. I always timely filed ethics reports while in this position."
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. Childs appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Ms. Childs appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Childs was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1992.
Ms. Childs gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Nexsen Pruet Jacobs and Pollard, LLC (March 1992 to June 2000).
I was employed as an associate attorney from 1992 to 1999. I was a partner from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000. During my employment with Nexsen Pruet, I primarily practiced in the area of labor and employment law (75%), general litigation (20%), and domestic law (5%). I provided daily advice to clients, drafted and responded to pleadings, argued motions, researched and drafted briefs, attended court, and tried cases. As a labor and employment law practitioner, I assisted clients on issues such as disciplinary actions, employment policies and procedures, grievances, unfair labor practices, NLRB elections, EEOC/SHAC charges of discrimination, OFCCP Compliance Audits, affirmative action plans, collective bargaining, arbitration, contracts, fair labor standards, the Family and Medical Leave Act, ERISA, Title VII litigation, age discrimination, sexual harassment, employment at-will, workers' compensation, retaliatory discharge, breach of contract, covenants not to compete, wrongful termination, whistleblower, and equal employment opportunity issues. I also handled administrative matters, including grievance proceedings, charges of discrimination, and unemployment compensation. In general litigation, I handled such matters as police brutality, negligent supervision, breach of contract, securities investigations, collections, declaratory judgments, injunctions, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, conservatorship, defamation, sl ander, false imprisonment, and wrongful death. In domestic litigation, I handled such matters as divorce, child custody and visitation, abuse and neglect, name change, adoption, and paternity suits. I have represented various corporate clients, local and state governmental agencies, and individual persons in legal matters. I assisted clients with lawsuits which required me to handle mediations and to appear before various grievance boards and committees, the South Carolina Employment Security Commission, the South Carolina Department of Labor, the Federal Department of Labor, the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, the South Carolina magistrates' courts, state courts, federal courts, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. During my employment with Nexsen Pruet, I also participated actively on the business development committee, the recruiting committee, and the litigation training committee.
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (July 2000-June 2002).
I was employed as the Deputy Director of the Division of Labor. My general job duties and responsibilities included assisting the Director in carrying out the statutory responsibilities of the Division; overseeing the operation of all Division program activities through the Program Administrators; overseeing the Division's legal issues, public relations, budget planning, and administration; establishing and administering program policies and operating procedures for various programs within the Division; administering programs to reduce work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities; investigating and enforcing the payment of wages and child labor laws; ensuring the safety of the public regarding the use of elevators and amusement rides; and, providing a means of review and conciliation between employers and employees in alleged unfair labor practices. I also presided over hearings and issued orders regarding permanent and temporary variance requests from elevator rules and regulations; permanent and temporary variance requests from Occupational Safety and Health Standards; protested citations issued for violations of the payment of wages and child labor statutes; and adoption of various rules and regulations affecting the Division of Labor. In this position, I directly supervised seven employees and had over 100 employees for which I was accountable. I handled a budget of over $5 million dollars consisting of state and federal funds.
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (July 2002-present).
I am currently employed as one of seven Commissioners who are appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of six years. My job duties are to administer and enforce South Carolina's workers' compensation law, to hear and determine all contested cases within the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Commission, to hear and determine disputes between the parties during their litigation of claims prior to a final hearing, to approve all settlements, to review and execute orders, to sit monthly as a member of a three-person appellate panel and review the decisions and orders of other Commissioners, to oversee the administration of the day-to-day operations of the Commission through a reporting relationship with the Executive Director, and to establish the policies and procedures of the Commission."
Ms. Childs further reported:
"Frankly, I have had very little experience in handling criminal matters. The only time that I have dealt with criminal issues has been through court-appointed matters, which were mostly domestic cases requiring some knowledge of criminal law. Additionally, I have served on the Richland County Public Defender Board and in the SC Bar House of Delegates, both of which have addressed various issues affecting criminal procedure and law. My background, however, has greatly prepared me to handle criminal matters. With my extensive civil court experience, I have had to engage the rules of civil procedure and evidence, to handle cases from intake to preparation for trial, to try cases in various courts, and to appeal court rulings, all of which are skills that are also necessary in criminal proceedings. I have attended CLEs on criminal procedure and law and have read the primary and most recent case law in this area and plan to continue studying and keeping abreast of this area of law and to observe criminal matters in court. I would hold pre-trial conferences to gain better knowledge of the issues to come before me and research the law and any evidentiary issues prior to trial. Furthermore, as a Workers' Compensation Commissioner, I hear cases weekly which, like criminal matters, require me to judge the credibility of witnesses, determine evidentiary issues, and to apply the facts to the procedural and substantive law. Even more relevant, I have been very actively involved in several community organizations that have helped me to understand and appreciate the various social, economic and educational issues affecting our State, which I also believe will be necessary skills in criminal court.
In the area of civil matters, I have handled various matters in the areas of employment and labor law, civil rights law, domestic law, and general litigation. My practice involved representing mostly defendants, but I also represented plaintiffs. I continued to utilize my knowledge of civil matters while working at the SC Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation as the designated hearing officer for various matters that came before the Division of Labor. I also was called upon to assist our attorneys with case preparation for matters against the Division of Labor. Additionally, in my position as a Commissioner with the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, I am responsible for over 200 files monthly, preside at over 50 hearings monthly and have to rule on legal matters and evidentiary issues. I also serve in an appellate capacity monthly as part of a three-member Full Commission panel that rules on orders from other Single Commissioners."
Ms. Childs reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"I have not been in private practice since July of 2000. The following is based on my experience while in private practice.
The following includes motions hearings and discovery disputes.
(a)   Federal:   bi-monthly;
(b)   State:     bi-monthly."
Ms. Childs reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"I have not been in private practice since July of 2000. The following is based on my experience while in private practice.
(a)   Civil:       95%;
(b)   Criminal:     0%;
(c)   Domestic:   5%."
Ms. Childs reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"I have not been in private practice since July of 2000. The following is based on my experience while in private practice.
(a)   Jury:       20%--Most of my cases have resolved favorably on dispositive motions and settlements;
(b)   Non-jury:     80%."
With regard to Ms. Childs' service as counsel, she provided that she has "most often served as sole counsel or chief counsel during the last 5 years of my practice. Because I was in a large firm handling substantial legal matters, there were usually at least two attorneys assigned to a file, but I took the lead on the files within my primary responsibility."
The following is Ms. Childs's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Barbara Jean Stanley, as Personal Representative for the Estate of James W. Blume v. Bamberg County, Case No. 97-CP-05-19 (Bamberg County Circuit Court).

This case arose out of the suicide of James W. Blume, a convicted felon, while he was incarcerated at the Bamberg County Detention Center. The case alleged causes of action for negligence, wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering. Blume was placed on suicide watch as a precautionary measure, because at the time of his booking, he was intoxicated, attempted to escape and run out of the building, was uncooperative, complained that he could not breathe and requested his nasal spray, and later slumped to the floor. Although Blume was checked on a regular, frequent basis, he committed suicide in his cell using his underwear as a noose. In the trial of this case, among other things, I was responsible for the direct examination of the jail officer who last checked Blume before his death, but wrote the time down in the "suicide watch book" in the wrong order and corrected it later. We were granted a mistrial on the basis of a hung jury (10-2) and the case eventually settled.
(b)   Woods v. Woods, Case No. 93-CC-40-0003 (Richland County Family Court).

My client, Ms. Woods, left her husband, Mr. Woods, while living in North Carolina and took their two children to California. Mr. Woods filed an affidavit with a North Carolina court in which he represented to the Court that the children and he were all residents of North Carolina with full knowledge that Ms. Woods and the children were living in California. Mr. Woods obtained an ex parte Order granting him custody of the children on the basis of this fraudulent affidavit, took the Order to California and was given custody of the children by the police, and then brought the children to South Carolina. Ms. Woods sought to re-gain custody of her children from her ex-husband and obtained an ex parte Order from California giving her temporary custody of the children. I was able to get the South Carolina Family Court to give full faith and credit to Ms. Wood's California Order granting her temporary custody, allow Ms. Woods to obtain her children from her ex-husband, and to get the case transferred back to the California Family Court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. Ms. Woods was later awarded permanent custody of the children by the California Family Court.
(c)   White v. Chambliss, et al, Civil Action No. 1:93-3058-6 (United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Aiken Division).

This case was an action against social workers and DSS for the alleged wrongful death of a minor child while she was in foster care. The minor child presented at the hospital with a broken arm, was suspected of child abuse, and placed in the custody of DSS. The minor child was eventually placed into foster care and, about a month later, died of blows to the head while in the foster home. I represented the DSS case worker who was involved in the placement of the children in foster care. I filed a motion for summary judgment based on a qualified immunity defense protecting the DSS case worker from liability. The District Court denied the motion for summary judgment. Another lawyer in the firm handled the appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted summary judgment on the basis of the qualified immunity defense.
(d)   Dooley v. UPS, Civil Action No. 3:94-1848-OBC (United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division).

The plaintiff alleged that UPS failed to reasonably accommodate him and terminated him because of his alleged disability (back injury) in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). I represented UPS and was granted summary judgment after proving that the claimant filed a claim with the SC Workers' Compensation Commission alleging that he could not work as a result of his back injury and was awarded permanent and total disability, and thus, was judicially estopped from taking a contrary position in his ADA claim by contending that he could work and perform the essential functions of his job with UPS.
(e)   Gibbs v. SCE&G, et al, Civil Action No. 3:93-0770-0 (United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division).

The plaintiff's riding privileges on SCE&G's Dial-A-Ride Transit system for persons with disabilities were suspended as a result of various complaints by drivers and passengers regarding his disruptive and offensive behavior. The plaintiff alleged causes of action for discrimination and retaliation and coercion under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, state law claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision, libel per se, and civil conspiracy. After extensive discovery and litigation of the case, the District Court granted summary judgment on five out of nine causes of action then the case settled."
The following is Ms. Childs's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   Sea Pines Association for the Protection of Wildlife, Inc., et. al. v. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Services Associates, Inc., Op. No. 25326, filed July 23, 2001, South Carolina Supreme Court --- (tried case and wrote briefs).

Sea Pines has been legally designated as a wildlife sanctuary. I represented local and national animal rights groups and individual residents and homeowners of Sea Pines Plantation in Hilton Head Island who ultimately sought a permanent injunction to restrain the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources ("SCDNR") from issuing permits for the lethal elimination of deer within Sea Pines and a declaratory judgment that SCDNR was not complying with the requisite statutes, rules and regulations relative to the issuance of permits in a wildlife sanctuary. I obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order enjoining SCDNR and the neighborhood association from obtaining permits for the killing of deer in Sea Pines. The request for temporary injunction was later denied, but I filed a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas with the South Carolina Court of Appeals and was granted an injunction enjoining SCDNR from issuing any further permits for killing deer in Sea Pines until the trial of the case. I lost the non-jury trial of the case. Shortly thereafter, SCDNR issued another permit. I filed another Petition for Writ of Supersedeas requesting an injunction with the SC Court of Appeals, which was granted. The case was heard eventually by the South Carolina Supreme Court which decided that my clients lacked standing to challenge the issuance of the permits and that SCDNR complied with the laws of the State when it issued the permits.
(b)   White v. SC State Budget and Control Board, Op. No. 24711, filed November 10, 1997, South Carolina Supreme Court --- (argued case and wrote briefs).

The plaintiffs are attorneys who asserted causes of actions against the defendants for civil conspiracy and defamation per se. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, a mayor and city manager, conspired against them and defamed them by publicly accusing them of charging excessive fees in the settlement of a case during a radio broadcast interview. I represented the defendants and was granted summary judgment by the circuit court. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the decision.
(c)   Harris and Prasky v. L&L Wings, Inc., Op. No. 962315, decided December 24, 1997, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals --- (associate counsel in trial and wrote appellate brief).

The plaintiffs alleged causes of action for sexual harassment, under both quid pro quo and hostile environment theories, retaliatory discharge, and pay discrimination pursuant to Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. I represented the defendants. At the summary judgment hearing, the district court dismissed the Title VII sex discrimination disparate pay claim. At the trial, the district court ordered a directed verdict as to the equal pay cause of action and one plaintiff's retaliation claim. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the other retaliation claim and the sexual harassment claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict."
Ms. Childs has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Ms. Childs reported she held the following judicial office:
"I currently serve as a Commissioner with the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission. I was appointed by Governor James Hodges in 2000 to serve a six year term ending in June of 2008. The Workers' Compensation Commission only handles matters involving on-the-job injuries. The Workers' Compensation Commission is not part of South Carolina's unified judicial system."
The following is Ms. Childs's account of her five most significant orders:
"As a Workers' Compensation Commissioner, the issues that come before me are generally: jurisdiction, coverage, statute of limitations, compensability, average weekly wage and compensation rate, past and future medical treatment, maximum medical improvement, temporary and permanent disability benefits, illegal suspension or termination of benefits, and Second Injury Fund benefits. Many of the issues are more factual than legal. As a result, I would not consider these general matters that we hear to be of legal significance. Nonetheless, below are some orders in which I participated that I do believe to be significant:
(a)   Roberts v. McNair Law Firm and Companion Commercial Insurance Company, Op. No. 3999, filed June 13, 2005, South Carolina Court of Appeals --- (served on Full Commission Panel).

The claimant sought to include in the calculation of her average weekly wage and compensation rate all merit raises she received after her injury. The claimant also wanted the Single Commissioner to find that the weeks she worked part-time and received temporary partial compensation should not be counted as full weeks in determining the number of weeks to be paid in her permanent disability award of 500 weeks. The Single Commissioner ruled that the claimant's average weekly wage and compensation rate is determined at the time of the injury and that the claimant was entitled to 500 weeks of compensation less the number of weeks, including half-weeks, that she received temporary partial compensation. The Full Commission, the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
(b)   Brown v. Greenwood Mills, Inc., Op. No. 4034, filed October 24, 2005, South Carolina Court of Appeals --- (served on Full Commission Panel).

The claimant developed byssinosis while working with cotton at Greenwood Mills, but was also a long-term cigarette smoker. The Single Commissioner awarded benefits for an occupational lung disease. The Full Commission affirmed the decision. The Circuit Court also affirmed the decision, but declared the Full Commission should have allocated a portion of the claimant's disease to his long history of cigarette smoking, a non-compensable cause of his lung disease. The Court of Appeals affirmed the compensability of the occupational lung disease but reversed the Circuit Court's finding that the Full Commission should have apportioned the benefits since the award was supported by the record.
(c)   Minett v. Carolina Conference of Seventh Nosoca Pines Ranch, WCC # 9824084 (heard August 5, 2002) --- (Single Commissioner).

The primary issue in this case was whether the defendants were required to provide the claimant with future attendant care by her family at reasonable market rates. This issue had not been addressed by South Carolina appellate courts. I determined that the defendants were responsible for future attendant care services for the claimant that are medically necessary for her injuries at the reasonable market rate for the area and that the evidence showed that the claimant's family could provide more suitable care for her than certified nursing assistants in the area. This issue in the case was resolved after this ruling, but other issues were appealed and have not yet been determined.
(d)   Pitts v. McCormick School District, WCC # 0208104, Civil Action No. 04-CP-24-1612 (Richland County Circuit Court) --- (Single Commissioner).

The claimant had a pre-existing condition of chronic post-traumatic stress syndrome ("PTSD"), obsessive compulsive personality disorder, and mania. Claimant was employed as a middle school teacher. He alleged that his PTSD was aggravated from incidents by students disrupting the classroom and, in particular, when he was teaching in the classroom and a child screamed after seeing a spider. This event reminded him of a prior incident leading to the onset of his PTSD. I determined that the claimant's job duties and the incident alleged were not extraordinary or unusual in comparison to the normal conditions of his employment as a teacher. The Full Commission and the Circuit Court affirmed the decision.
(e)   SC Dept. of Education v. The Second Injury Fund, WCC # 0223156 (heard March 2, 2004) --- (Single Commissioner).

The defendants sought partial reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund since the claimant had been diagnosed with a pre-existing condition of arthritis. I determined that the defendants were not entitled to partial reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund since the claimant's underlying claim had not been concluded, and thus, it had not yet been determined that the claimant suffered a subsequent disability resulting from the work injury. The Full Commission affirmed the decision. The defendants did not further appeal that decision."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Childs's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Childs to "be an eminently qualified and very highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."
Ms. Childs is married to Dr. Floyd Lancelot Angus. She does not have any children.
Ms. Childs reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"American Bar Association:

Judicial Division (2004-present);

Commissioner, Commission on Mental and Physical Disabilities (2003-06);

Fellow, American Bar Foundation (2001-present).
American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division:

Fellow, ABA Labor and Employment Law Section, EEO Committee (2001-03);

Liaison, Commission on Racial & Ethnic Diversity (2002-03);

Chair, Minorities in the Profession Committee (2001-02);

Vice Chair, Minorities in the Profession Committee (2000-01);

ABA/YLD Diversity Team (2001-02);

Chair, Awards of Achievement Committee (1999-00);

Beyond the Boundaries Team (1998-99);

Planning Board for Minorities in the Profession Committee (1997-99);

National Conferences Committee (1997-98).
Columbia Lawyers Association:

Secretary (1994);

President (1992-93).
John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court:

President, (2002-03);

Program Chair (1999-01);

Member (1996-present).
Merit Selection Panel, United States District Court, District of South Carolina:

Member (2000).
Richland County Bar Association:

Board of Directors, Public Defenders' Office (1997-99);

Long Range Planning Committee (1997-99);

Chair, Law Week Committee (1995-97);

Advisory Committee (1995-97).
South Carolina Bar:

House of Delegates (1996-02); (2006-present);

Board of Governors (2002-04);

Diversity and Inclusiveness Committee (1996-99);

Long Range Planning Committee (1997-99);

Co-Chair, Sub-Committee on Inclusiveness (1996-99);

CLE Committee (1996-97);

Diversity Task Force (1996-98);

Judicial Qualifications Committee (1996);

Employment and Labor Law Section:

President (2000-01), President-Elect (1999-00), Vice Chair (1998-99), Secretary-Treasurer (1997-98), CLE Coordinator (1996-97), Newsletter Editor (1995-96).
South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division:

President (2001-02);

President-Elect (2000-01);

Secretary-Treasurer (1999-00);

Long Range Planning Committee (1995-01);

Co-Chair, Time Out for Seniors Project (1998-99);

Chair, Diversity in the Profession Committee (1997-98);

Co-Chair, Diversity Task Force; First Place Winner, ABA Awards of Achievement (1996-97);

Youth Empowerment Summit Committee (1988).
South Carolina Black Lawyers Association:

Secretary (1995-97).
South Carolina Governor's Executive Institute:

(2001-02).
South Carolina Industry Liaison Group:

President (2000-01);

Second Vice President (1998-99);

Board of Directors (1997-present).
South Carolina Supreme Court:

Associate Member, Board of Law Examiners (2003-present).
South Carolina Women Lawyers Association:

Board of Directors (1999-01);

Co-Chair, Nominating Committee (1999-00);

Planning Board for Annual CLE (1997-98).
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Educational Association:

Board of Directors (2002-present).
Southern Association of Workers' Compensation Administrators:

Executive Committee (2002-present).
University of South Carolina School of Law:

President, Law School Alumni Association (2005-06);

Vice President, Law School Alumni Association (2004-05);

Secretary, Law School Alumni Association (2003-04);

Nelson Mullins Center for Professionalism Advisory Committee (2001-present);

Alumni Association Board (1998-present);

Planning Board for Annual Fund Drive (1995-97)."
Ms. Childs provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"Benjamin E. Mays Academy for Leadership Development:

Program Coordinator (1991-present).
Columbia Urban League:

Board Member (2000 to present);

Nominating Committee (2003-present);

Equal Opportunity Day Dinner Committee (2001).
Midlands Authority for Conventions, Sports and Tourism:

Board Member (1999-present);

Secretary (2003-present).
St. Martin De Porres Catholic Church:

School Board (2003-present);

Education Endowment Committee (1998-00).

HONORS AND AWARDS:

The State Newspaper's "Top 20 under 40" Award (2005);

University of South Carolina Moore School of Business Outstanding Young Alumni Award (2005);

John M. McFadden Award, Benjamin E. Mays Leadership Academy (2005);

Strathmore's Who's Who (2005);

American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division Affiliate Leader Award (2002);

SHEROES Award, Columbia Urban League (2002);

University of South Carolina Outstanding Young Alumni Award (2000);

Richland County Bar Civic Star Award (1999);

American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division Star of the Quarter Award (1999);

YWCA of the Midlands Tribute to Women and Industry Recognition (1998);

South Carolina Compleat Lawyer Award, Silver Medallion (1997)."
Ms. Childs additionally reported:
"I am greatly humbled by the opportunity to seek the nomination for the position of Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9. I believe that I am duly qualified for this position based on my education, experience, demonstrated leadership abilities, strong work ethic, compassion for the law, fair and impartial temperament, patient demeanor, and professionalism. I have always measured my accomplishments by the respect that I afford my fellow man and the ethical and moral standards by which I govern my personal life. I have been granted the highest civic, public, and bar service awards through anonymous nominations from my colleagues although never seeking any credit for my passion for public service and service to the bar. I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to perform in private practice, to head a division of a State agency, and to serve in a judicial capacity. I have developed excellent research and writing skills, administrative skills, and trial skills in these positions.

I believe it is a privilege to be a lawyer. As a member of the bar, I feel that it is imperative that all lawyers perform community service and engage in activities that will enhance the lives of others. Each of us has the ability to positively affect another person 's life, whether it be through pro bono representation, giving time in free legal clinics, mentoring a young lawyer, sharing expertise in an area of law, or encouraging diversity initiatives within one's firm or in the bar.   I have always challenged myself to go beyond what is a reasonable amount of community service and to engage in projects that positively advance the public's perception of lawyers. These experiences not only make the quality of life better for all generations, but they enhance my personal development and open my mind about real-life situations. During my tenure as President of the South Carolina Young Lawyers Division, I achieved national awards for my innovative projects: "Hoop It Up: Pack It In", a basketball fundraiser for school supplies for underprivileged children in elementary schools throughout the State of South Carolina; Diversity Video Project, "Equal Justice: The Law, Lawyers and Civil Rights," which portrays South Carolina lawyers' roles in the Civil Rights Movement; and "Does a Difference Make a Difference?" a diversity continuing legal education seminar and reception. Also, as President of the Columbia Lawyers Association, I commemorated the first "Matthew J. Perry" medallion which is now awarded annually in honor of South Carolina's first African-American Federal Court jurist.

I have incredible respect for our noble profession. My appreciation and respect for our profession was greatly enhanced when I went to South Africa in 1998 and 2001 to teach in its Practical Legal Training Schools in Capetown, Johannesburg and Pretoria. At that time, the bar organizations of South Africa had just desegregated. Many communities were still segregated and very poor-it was not uncommon for children in Soweto to go to school without shoes. The country still suffered from the effects of Apartheid. Minority women still felt subservient to men, some still holding their heads down when speaking to men. Democracy was just a shallow dream to many people in this country. Despite these obstacles, the students in the schools had great souls and amazing spirits and were very respectful. They wanted to be a part of changing their society to resemble the freedoms that many take for granted in America. Our group shared our knowledge of America's fair legal system and how it carved out the freedoms for all persons in this country. This experience further taught me that I must always have respect when dealing with persons from all walks of life since you do not always know the circumstances of a person's life, which are crucial skills for a judge."

The Commission noted Ms. Childs' outstanding academic record and her dedicated commitment to as well as her leadership in professional and civic organizations in this state and nationally. They commented that she is a highly regarded attorney. The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for election to the Circuit Court.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Debra J. 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 46 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.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. Gammons to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Gammons described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   21st Annual Criminal Law Update, January 2006;
(b)   Trial and Appellate Advocacy, January 2006;
(c)   Ethics (instructor), December 16, 2005;
(d)   Local Government Planning/Zoning Officials and Employees Training, October 2005;
(e)   20th Annual Criminal Law Update, January 2005;
(f)   Government Law Section, January 2005;
(g)   Ethics, January 2005;
(h)   Land Development, Planning, and Zoning Section Workshop, October 3, 2004;
(i)   Mobile Land Use Workshop, October 3, 2004;
(j)   Personnel Law for the Public Employer, October 4, 2004;
(k)   First Amendment, October 4, 2004;
(l)   Litigation and Risk Management, October 4, 2004;
(m)   Inter-District Relationships, October 5, 2004;
(n)   Important Developments in Land Use Law, October 5, 2004;
(o)   Client Relationships - How to Practice Municipal Law, October 6, 2004;
(p)   Attorney's Oath and Ethics, September 10, 2004;
(q)   Judicial Conference - 4th Judicial Circuit, June 26, 2003;
(r)   Zoning and Land Use (instructor), July 24, 2003;
(s)   Legal Issues Involving Local Governments, November 7, 2003;
(t)   Ethics (instructor), September 12, 2002;
(u)   Criminal Law Update, January 26, 2001;
(v)   Doing Business with South Carolina Local Government, March 9, 2001;
(w)   2001 Colloquium - The Great Sea Change: Women and the Law in the Twentieth Century, April 19 - 20, 2001;
(x)   Driving Under the Influence 101 - For Law Enforcement Officers and Prosecutors, April 26, 2001;
(y)   Women and the Law - The Study of Legal Issues and an Historical Perspective of Females in the Law Profession, May 2, 2001;
(z)   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 (death penalty, abortion, physician-assisted suicide, insanity defense, First Amendment, racial discrimination, gender discrimination); study of constitutional law, case law, statutes. I organized debates and Mock Trials for the students; also directed students in 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 case and the skills and knowledge needed to be an effective paralegal.
(d)   Discovery - Greenville Technical College
-Examination of all areas of discovery - how to request information for cases, find information, submit information to the adverse party; obtain information from the adverse party and other sources; use of the Internet and the Freedom of Information Act.
(e)   Ethics - Greenville Association of Legal Assistants Seminar (2 years)
-Taught the basics of ethics; prepared seminar materials.
(f)   Ethics - Greenville County Bar Association Seminar
-Taught the recent changes in the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(g)   Zoning and Land Use - Lorman Education Services Seminar
-The necessary elements of an effective Zoning Ordinance; effective presentation before the Zoning Board of Appeals; duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals and Zoning Administrator; examination of case law and specific matters before the Board of Zoning Appeals."
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 troubled financial status.
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 her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Ms. Gammons reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "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.
Ms. Gammons gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"(a)   Assistant Solicitor, Ninth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office, 1992-1993 Prosecuted criminal cases (average 600 warrants per year); interviewed witnesses, victims, police officers, and pre-trial intervention candidates.
(b)   Attorney, Warlick Law Office, 1993-1994
-General Practice - represented clients (mainly plaintiffs); litigate cases (personal injury, medical malpractice, child custody, divorce, criminal defense).
(c)   Law Partner, Daniels and Gammons, Attorneys at Law, 1994-1997
-General Practice - represented clients (plaintiffs and defendants); litigate civil and criminal cases (including, but not limited to, workers' compensation, personal injury, contract disputes, criminal defense).
(d)   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, Fire and Police Practices Commission; negotiate and manage certain contracts (Police Duty Wrecker Service); handle business license issues and revocations."
Ms. Gammons further reported:
"Criminal Matters - Prosecution of criminal cases since 1992 (Solicitor's Office in Charleston); these cases included Felony Driving Under the Influence, Assault and Battery, Lynching, Criminal Domestic Violence; City of Greenville cases include Assault and Battery, Criminal Domestic Violence, Simple Possession of Marijuana, Disorderly Conduct, Driving Under the Influence. Cases that are not resolved through a plea negotiation are tried before a jury. Besides the issues of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the usual issues of objections based on hearsay, admission of prior bad acts, exclusion of evidence, exclusion of witnesses are involved.
While in private practice, I defended those accused of crimes (Driving Under the Influence, Assault and Battery, Drug cases) and represented those with complaints of Section 1983 actions against police officers for the use of excessive force.
Civil Matters - As Assistant City Attorney, I handle cases involving allegations of wrongdoing by police officers (use of excessive force, false arrest, Section 1983 actions); I defend the City in these cases. I litigate zoning appeals and business license revocation appeals, allegations of 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 vehicle confiscation and forfeiture cases. I appear before the Employment Security Commission for unemployment compensation disputes and before the Administrative Law Court and Circuit Court for requests of Alcohol Permit denials.
While in private practice, I litigated divorces, child custody, child support, and adoption cases. I also litigated 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:       15%;
(b)   Criminal:     85%;
(c)   Domestic:   0%."
Ms. Gammons reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:       20%;
(b)   Non-jury:     80%."
Ms. Gammons provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Gammons' account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Wal-Mart, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, City of Greenville, 2005-CP-40-0902. City of Greenville intervened when convenience stores and other stores applied for alcohol permits for off-premises consumption on Sundays. This case was appealed by some of the stores and is now pending oral arguments. Significance - This case involves legislation on alcohol sales and the amendment to the statutes that require specific language on referenda before alcohol can be sold on Sundays.
(b)   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 - This was the first case I argued before the Court of Appeals. I enjoyed the research and writing the brief. I loved the oral arguments.
(c)   Chapman v. Troup, 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 a City detective. Significance - This was a two-day jury trial and the presiding judge ruled against me at almost every turn. The judge even admitted his error in sustaining a substantial objection by plaintiff's attorney. But I won.
(d)   Foster v. City of Greenville, 1996-CP-23-1399. Plaintiff alleged that City wrongfully denied him a building permit. Significance - This was a jury trial that I had to litigate after working for the City a few weeks; I did not have a great deal of time to prepare but I was extremely diligent. I won the case.
(e)   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 League. His defense was basically, "I am a great football player and, therefore, I cannot be guilty." The jury found defendant guilty. The matter was further prolonged because the trial judge sentenced defendant to complete community service and he did not do so. The issue was whether defendant had violated his sentence and was in contempt of court since the trial judge did not specify a deadline for completion of the community service. After an appeal to Circuit Court, the Circuit Court judge did not find defendant in contempt and gave him a definite time to complete his community service. I learned that a judge needs to be as specific as possible in sentencing."
The following is Ms. Gammons' account of five 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.
(c)   Brown, et al. v. City of Greenville, Greenville County Court of Common Pleas (Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision), Case Number: 2003-CP-23-211, order signed June 17, 2003.
(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.
(e)   Wal-Mart, et al v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, City of Greenville, Richland County Court of Common Pleas (Appeal of Administrative Law Court's ruling), Case Number: 2005-CP-40-00902, order signed November 7, 2005 (plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's decision; that appeal is pending)."
The following is Ms. Gammons' account of criminal appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   City of Greenville v. Snyder, Greenville County Court of Common Pleas, Case Number: 1999-CP-23-3379, order signed October 18, 1999.
(b)   City of Greenville v. Watson, Greenville County Court of Common Pleas, Case Number: 1998-CP-23-2031, order signed September 15, 1998.
(c)   City of Greenville v. Kaplan, Greenville County Court of Common Pleas, Case Number: 1999-CP-23-4135, order signed August 16, 2000.
(d)   City of Greenville v. Drummond, et al, Greenville County Court of Common Pleas, Case Number: 1998-CP-23-3445, order signed January 25, 1999."
Ms. Gammons further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies: "(1) South Carolina State Senate, Senate District 7 -2000, 2004; (2) At-Large Circuit Court Seat - May 2005."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Gammons' temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Gammons "meets, but does not exceed, expectations as a jurist candidate for Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 9."
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, President Elect, 2005-present;
(b)   Greenville County Bar Association, Secretary, 2004-2005;
(c)   Greenville County Bar Association, Treasurer, 2003-2004;
(d)   South Carolina Bar, Board of Governors, 2004-present;
(e)   South Carolina Bar, House of Delegates, 2004-present;
(f)   American Bar Association;
(g)   Municipal Lawyers Association of South Carolina;
(h)   International Municipal Lawyers Association;
(i)   South Carolina Supreme Court Commission on Lawyer Conduct;
(j)   South Carolina Bar Foundation Board of Directors."
Ms. Gammons provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar Mock Trial Competition, District Coordinator;
(b)   English as a Second Language volunteer teacher, Greenville Literacy Association;
(c)   Greenville Literacy Association Board member;
(d)   Greenview Elementary volunteer tutor;
(e)   College of Charleston Board of Trustees;
(f)   Community Law Week Committee, Chairperson;
(g)   Planned Parenthood Board of Directors;
(h)   Carolina Ballet Theatre Board of Directors;
(i)   Crime Stoppers Board of Directors;
(j)   Youth Court, Presiding Judge;
(k)   Neighborhood Housing Corporation Board of Directors;
(l)   Alliance for Community Trust (formerly Sexual Trauma Center) Board of Directors;
(m)   Community Law Week Run for Freedom Race Director."
Ms. Gammons additionally provided:
"I am fair, trustworthy, assertive, and enthusiastic. I have always worked to improve society; I have always encouraged people to set goals and work to reach their goals. I believe that all people are created equally and discrimination on the basis of race or gender has no place in our society. I am committed to equal justice for all. I am courteous and I treat people with respect. I also respect myself. Even when I disagree with someone, I still am professional and respectful. I follow the Golden Rule. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' I have overcome many adversities in my life but I have not let those adversities wear me down. I still have faith and energy and gratitude. I had to pay for college and law school myself; I had to take care of my daughter as a single parent. I have tried to turn obstacles into stepping stones. As a judge, I will not forget from where I have come. I will render decisions based on the law. Because I have a wide variety of legal experience, I will be able to make the right decision. I teach about the law. I have practiced civil and criminal law. I have represented plaintiffs and defendants in the civil arena. I have represented the government and the citizens in the civil arena. I have represented the State and City and defendants in the criminal arena. I have been in private practice. I have worked for the government. I have represented employers and employees. I have appeared before the Administrative Law Court, Employment Security Commission, Workers' Compensation Commission, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court, Magistrate's Court, Municipal Court. I have the intellectual capacity, analytical capacity, breadth of professional experience, diligence, and fortitude to be a most effective judge."
The Commission commented on Ms. Gammons' outstanding leadership qualities as evidenced by her past and current involvement in various professional and community organizations. They noted that she is very tenacious and forthright, which will serve her well on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found her qualified to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge John D. Geathers meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Geathers was born on April 10, 1961. He is 45 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. He has 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 made $30 in campaign expenditures for postage.
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 past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have complied with the CLE requirements for each of the last five years and have attended a variety of courses.
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 Credit:

"The Matter Does Not Appear to Me 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 Carolina," 18 Wis. Women's L.J. 233;
2004   Revised Lawyers' Oath;

Updating Advocacy Skills;

Ethical Issues for Estate Planning;
2005   Fourth Circuit Update;

Barnes Symposium on Religion;

Workers Comp. Update;

Tort Law Update."
Judge Geathers reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Lectured at CLE: Appellate Practice in SC - April 30, 1999;
(b)   Lectured at CLE: The CON Contested Case - May 2, 2003;
(c)   Lectured for SC Environmental Class, USC Law School - January 28, 2003 and January 16, 2004;
(d)   Lectured at Bridge the Gap - May 2005.
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 Then": Motions for Reconsideration Before 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) and also at S.C. TRIAL LAW. BULL., Fall 2003, at 14. (Adaptation from article cited above).
"Under Contract with SC Bar to coauthor Treatise on SC Alcoholic Beverage Laws, which should be completed soon."
(4)   Character:
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 has never had a rating from 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 gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"I was employed for approximately eight months as the OSHA attorney for the South Carolina Department of Labor upon graduation from law school 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 Administrative Law Court in 1994, I subsequently resigned from employment with the Senate. I have served as an ALJ for the last ten years."
Judge Geathers further reported:
"I have recently begun my third term as an Administrative Law Judge. As a judge, I preside over and render final written decisions in cases of both complexity and simplicity, cases with millions of dollars at stake and those impacting few dollars, and trials litigated by skillful counsel and those pressed by pro se individuals. I preside over administrative hearings which are virtually identical to civil bench trials in terms of procedure, evidentiary rules and protocol, and finality of decision.
I am responsible for hearing a broad range of contested and appellate cases from at least eighteen state agencies and governmental entities, with several of these presenting multiple types of cases. Selected examples include wage disputes, injunctive relief hearings, certificate of need cases, environmental and health permitting cases, state and county tax matters, appellate cases from thirty-seven professional licensing boards, and inmate grievances and probation, parole disputes. With regard to the inmate cases, the matters involve conditions of confinement and sentence calculations; as to probation and parole cases, the matters involve eligibility disputes.
While I have not presided over any criminal or civil cases, in my current capacity, I have monitored pretrial discovery, imposed and enforced scheduling orders, and conducted administrative trials from opening to closing arguments, while applying evidentiary and procedural rules and ruling on various motions raised before, during and after trial. I believe my experience as an Administrative Law Judge will translate in the civil and criminal forums.
Also, to prepare for the transition, I have reacquainted myself with and expanded my knowledge of the civil and criminal law by reviewing the leading treatises in these areas, civil and criminal rules of procedure, and advance sheets published over the last year."

Judge Geathers reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Not applicable. "I have served as an Administrative Law Court Judge for the last ten years."
Judge Geathers reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
Not applicable. "I have served as an Administrative Law Court Judge for the last ten years."
Judge Geathers reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
Not applicable. "I have served as an Administrative Law Court Judge for the last ten years."
Judge Geathers provided that he has not served as co-counsel, lead counsel, or sole counsel since he as "served as an Administrative Law Court Judge for the last ten years."
The following is Judge Geathers' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
Not applicable. "I have served as an Administrative Law Court Judge for the last ten years."
Judge Geathers has not personally handled any civil appeals.
Judge Geathers has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Judge Geathers has served as an Administrative Law Court Judge for the past ten years. He provided the following list of his five most significant order or opinions are as following:
"a)   Marlboro Park Hosp. v. SC 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) (in presiding over a contested case, the ALJ conducts a de novo hearing with the presentation of testimony and evidence and issues a decision with detailed findings of fact supporting the decision).
b)   The Ocean Course Golf Club, Ltd. v. Charleston County Assessor, No. 03-ALJ-17-0471-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Court Jan. 2005) (personal property and income derived there from must excluded from real estate valuation of golf course property for ad valorem tax purposes), cited Findings of 2005 Act 149, S. 589.

c)   Sierra Club v. SC Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control and Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC. No. 04-ALJ-07-0126-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Court Oct. 2005) decision to renew Radioactive Material License for the operation of the low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Barnwell).
d)   Macalloy Corporation v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, No. 01-ALJ-07-0099-CC (S.C. Administrative Law Judge Div. Oct. 30, 2001) (petitioner operated a ferrochromium alloy smelting facility until 1998; insufficient evidence to sustain regulatory Emergency order prohibiting the harvesting of shellfish in Shipyard Creek, as scientific evidence militated a contrary result).
e)   Central Midlands Council of Governments v. S.C. 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 2002) (administrative review of regulatory nonconcurrence in amendment to 208 Water Quality Management Plan."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Geathers' temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Geathers to "be a highly qualified and highly regarded judge, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."
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)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   North Carolina Bar;
(c)   National Association of Administrative Law Judges.
Judge Geathers further reported that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
Judge Geathers additionally reported:
"I have nothing further to disclose, as I believe the answers to the questions in the application are dispositive of all matters pertaining to my candidacy."
The Commission commented on Judge Geathers' great perspective on the role of a judge. They noted his thoughtful and articulate manner. The Commission found Judge Geathers 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, Mr. Daniel D. Hall meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Hall was born on October 2, 1954. He is 51 years old and a resident of York, South Carolina. Mr. Hall 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 1988. Mr. Hall also has been licensed to practice law in the State of North Carolina since 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall 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. Hall reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Hall 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. Hall 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. Hall to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hall described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have attended the South Carolina Solicitor's Association Convention each of the past 5 years and received required CLE hours." Specifically, Mr. Hall stated that he has attended the following:
"(a)   Trial Advocacy II - National Advocacy Center, August 12-16, 2002;
(b)   Focus on Sexual Assault Victims - National Advocacy Center, August 2-6, 2004;
(c)   2005 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference, September 25-28, 2005;
(d)   2004 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference, September 26-29, 2004;
(e)   2003 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference, September 28-October 1, 2003;
(f)   2002 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference, September 29-October 2, 2002;
(g)   2001 Annual Solicitor's Association Conference, September 30-October 3, 2001."
Mr. Hall reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Mr. Hall reported that he has published the following:
"(a)   Clergy Confidentiality: A Time to Speak and a Time to Be Silent, by Lynn Buzzard and Dan Hall, 1988 Christian Ministries Management Association."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hall did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hall did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hall has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Hall 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. Hall reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Hall appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Hall appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Hall was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.
Mr. Hall provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office. Assistant Solicitor, 1988-1990.
Sole Practitioner, 1991-1999. Small town general practice with focus on personal injury, criminal defense, worker's compensation and limited
domestic practice.
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office. Assistant Solicitor, 1999-present. Mr. Hall has been an assistant solicitor for the past seven years.
Mr. Hall further provided:
"I have been an assistant solicitor for the past seven years. I currently prosecute A, B or C felonies. I am employed as an assistant solicitor. I have no experience in civil matters during the past five years. I was in private practice from 1991 - 1999 and had a limited experience in the court of common pleas. My practice included criminal defense, personal injury, probate and some limited litigation in common pleas. I believe that I have the intellectual ability to quickly develop the necessary skills to preside in common pleas."
Mr. Hall reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:     0%;
(b)   State:       100%;
(c)   Other:       0%."
Mr. Hall 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. Hall reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:       20%;
(b)   Non-jury:     80%."
Mr. Hall provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Hall's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Russell Holley, 2002 GS 46 0698.

Murder trial in which boyfriend stabbed girlfriend to death in a rage of domestic violence. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole.
(b)   State v. Aaron Williams, 2003 GS 46 2745.

Burglary First Degree trial in which a 70 year-of-age widow's home was invaded while she was alone. She was physically attacked. Defendant left fingerprints. Defendant was sentenced to 30 years.
(c)   State v. Sakima McCullough, 2006 GS 46 0110.

Burglary First Degree, Armed Robbery and Kidnapping trial in which defendant was involved in a home invasion, robbery and assault on a victim with no ties to defendant. Defendant was sentenced to 30 years.
(d)   State v. Edward Miller, 2003 GS 46 0557.

Prosecutor in case in which defendant was charged with murder. Case was true billed by grand jury. In preparing for trial and investigating this case with an investigator from our office, we found evidence absolving this defendant of the murder. He had been wrongly charged. I dismissed the case.
(e)   State v. Penny Sue Price, 1994 GS 46 2784.

Defendant at trial, an indigent, mentally handicapped defendant charged with threatening the public housing officials. Found not guilty at trial."
Mr. Hall reported that he had not personally handled any civil appeals.
Mr. Hall reported that he had not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Mr. Hall reported he held the following judicial office:
"Municipal Judge - City of York, South Carolina - appointed by York City Council. January, 1993 - May, 1999. Signed criminal warrants and set bonds for general sessions criminal matters occurring in city limits. Presided over pleas, bench trials and jury trials for criminal or traffic charges in the City of York in which the statutory penalty was no greater than 30 days in jail or the fine was no more than $200."
Mr. Hall further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"Republican candidate for Solicitor, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, June, 1996. Candidate for Judge Sixteenth Circuit Family Court - 1998 - withdrew."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Hall's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Hall to "be exceptionally qualified for the position he is seeking."
Mr. Hall is married to Cathleen McCreight Hall. He has four children.
Mr. Hall reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   York County Bar Association, Treasurer, 1992;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   North Carolina Bar."
Mr. Hall provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Filbert Presbyterian Church, Clerk of Session;
(b)   York County Beekeepers Association;
(c)   National Cutting Horse Association;
(d)   Crisis Pregnancy Center of York County, Board Member."
The Commission noted Mr. Hall's excellent reputation as an assistant solicitor for the past seven years. They commented that his common sense approach and his life experiences would serve him well on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found him qualified to serve as a Circuit Court judge.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. William K. Witherspoon meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Witherspoon was born on September 4, 1959. He is 46 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Witherspoon provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Witherspoon.
Mr. Witherspoon 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. Witherspoon reported that he has made $30 in campaign expenditures for stationery.
Mr. Witherspoon 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. Witherspoon 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. Witherspoon to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Witherspoon described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Legal Ethics Update - March 2001;
(b)   Evidence for Criminal Litigators - August 2001;
(c)   Annual Ethics Seminar - November 2000;
(d)   11th Annual National Seminar on Federal Sentencing Guidelines -May 2002;
(e)   OCDETF Title III Training - January 2002;
(f)   U.S. Attorney Quarterly Legal Training - March 2002;
(g)   U.S. Attorney Training Retreat - July 2002;
(h)   New Strategies for Difficult Times - September 2002;
(i)   Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Conference -September 2002;
(j)   Jury Selection Seminar - February 2003;
(k)   U.S. Attorney Training Retreat - July 2003;
(l)   Introduction to Asset Forfeiture - September 2003;
(m)   Title III Training - January 2004;
(n)   U.S. Attorney Training Retreat - July 2004;
(o)   Revised Lawyer's Oath - November 2004;
(p)   Annual Ethics Seminar - November 2004;
(q)   U.S. Attorney's Oath Seminar - July 2004;
(r)   U.S. Attorney's Criminal Division Conference - February 2005;
(s)   International and National Security Coordinator's Conference - June 2005;
(t)   Attorney Supervisor's Seminar - July 2005;
(u)   U.S. Criminal Attorney's Training - September 2005;
(v)   Crisis Management Coordinator's Conference - October 2005;
(w)   Annual Ethics Seminar - November 2005."
Mr. Witherspoon reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I, along with another attorney, taught an upper level business law class at Benedict College from Fall of 1997 through Spring of 2000. I have lectured at the South Carolina Bar CLE in December 1997 on '20/20: An Optimal View of Significant Developments During 1996'. I lectured at the Richland County Bar's annual ethics seminar in November 2000 on new federal criminal cases. I lectured to Federal Paralegals on Pretrial Discovery in October 2001, on Fifth Amendment Issues in February 2004 and Witness Immunity Issues in February 2006. These lectures were given at the National Advocacy Center. I have been a guest lecturer on criminal conspiracy for Professor Ladson Boyle's Criminal Procedure class at USC Law School for the last 3 years. I have been a guest lecturer for Professor Jack Chambliss' class on mental health issues and criminal procedure at USC for the last 3 years."
Mr. Witherspoon reported the following regarding material he has published:
"Other than writing articles for the Richland County Bar Association's Newsletter as its President, I have not written any articles."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Witherspoon did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Witherspoon did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Witherspoon has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Witherspoon 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. Witherspoon reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Witherspoon appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Witherspoon appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Witherspoon was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"August 1991 - July 1992.
Law clerk to the Honorable Randall T. Bell, S.C. Court of Appeals.
August 1992 - August 1993.
Law clerk to the Honorable Matthew J. Perry, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
September 1993 - November 1995.
Attorney, Berry, Dunbar, Daniel, O'Connor, Jordan & Eslinger. My practice was a general civil plaintiff's oriented practice.
November 1995 - August 1996.
Law clerk to the Honorable Matthew J. Perry, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
September 1996 - July 1998.
Attorney, Berry, Adams, Quackenbush & Stuart. My practice was a general practice with both plaintiff's and defense cases. Cases included employment matters, contract matters, criminal defense, automobile accidents and other personal injury cases.
July 1998 - May 2000.
Associate General Counsel, South Carolina Budget and Control Board.
As a member of the General Counsel's Office, I served as legal advisor and provided legal advice and representation to different Board offices and staff. I reviewed contracts, proposed legislation and represented the Board offices in legal disputes.
May 2000- present.
Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office. I am involved in the prosecution of federal narcotics and firearms crimes. Since January 2005, I have also served as the Anti-Terrorism coordinator for our office. Since February 2005, I have also served as interim Violent Crimes Section chief in the United States Attorney's Office.
Mr. Witherspoon further reported:
Criminal Experience
Over the last six (6) years, my practice has been exclusively in criminal matters. I have handled cases involving violations of narcotics statutes, violations of federal firearms statutes, armed robbery matters, narcotics related murders and violations of federal immigration laws.
Civil Experience
Over the course of my career, I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in civil matters. My civil practice has included personal injury cases and other intentional torts. I have handled automobile accident cases, contract disputes and employment matters. In addition, I have continued to review reported civil cases from both the state and federal courts. I would continue to study the Rules of Civil Procedure and the reported civil cases to overcome any deficiency in my experience."
Mr. Witherspoon reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   100%;
(b)   State:     0%."
Mr. Witherspoon reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:       2%;
(b)   Criminal:     98%;
(c)   Domestic:   0%."
Mr. Witherspoon reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:       30%;
(b)   Non-jury:     70%."
Mr. Witherspoon provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Witherspoon's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Robert L. Tobias, et al v. The Sports Club, et al, 332 S.C. 90, 504 S.E.2d 318 (1998). I served as co-counsel in this case. This was a first party cause of action against the Defendants for serving alcohol to an intoxicated Plaintiff under the theory of Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E.2d 351 (Ct. App. 1985). After the jury returned a verdict for the Defendants, my firm appealed on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Jury verdict was upheld and the Supreme Court overruled Christiansen.
(b)   United States of America v. Jorge Gonzalez-Vasquez, et al, 77 Fed. Appx. (4th Cir. (S.C.) October 20, 2003). This case was tried in federal court in March 2002. This case arose from the discovery of an organized drug smuggling and sports betting ring in the federal prison in Edgefield, South Carolina. A total of 22 defendants, including inmates and their family members, were charged. Four of the defendants went to trial and were convicted. The remaining eighteen (18) defendants pled guilty to a number of different charges. Because several of the defendants did not speak English, this case involved the use of Spanish interpreters for the defendants, the use of translated recorded prison telephone calls, and the use of historical evidence of drug smuggling from other federal prisons.
(c)   Jackson Construction Company v. Mills Communication. This was a breach of contract action filed in Richland County. My firm represented Mills Communication. This case is significant to me because it was my first trial. I tried this case as sole counsel without any pretrial discovery or even the contract in question. The Plaintiff sought damages of approximately $90,000.00. At trial, I was able to limit the Plaintiff' s award to $36,000.00. After the trial, the Plaintiff complimented me on my case preparation and strategy.
(d)   United States v. David Michael Woodward, et al, 430 F3d 681 (4th Cir. 2005). This case arose out of a pain management clinic in Myrtle Beach. The clinic was dispensing powerful narcotic pain medication to its patients. We alleged that the doctors were over prescribing and illegally prescribing these medication to patients who were not in need of the medication. In some cases the doctors did not perform any physical examination of the patients or the patients were intoxicated when they came to the clinic. Patients, allegedly in severe pain, were traveling more than three (3) hours to visit the clinic. The doctors alleged that they were in a better position to diagnose and treat the patients. After a two (2) week trial, the doctors were convicted. This case was the first of its kind in South Carolina.
(e)   United States v. Kenneth Reid, et al This case arose out of an undercover drug deal in Rock Hill, South Carolina. After Mr. Reid determined who was the undercover informant, he hired another drug dealer to kill the informant. They were successful in killing the informant. The local police sought federal help in investigating the crime and prosecution. After the shooter was located in Texas and brought back to South Carolina, he then faked being mentally ill which required a mental evaluation. Only Mr. Reid went to trial. At trial, we tried Mr. Reid for his ongoing drug conspiracy, possession of a firearm by a habitual drug user, using a firearm during the commission of a violent felony and aiding and abetting in the commission of a violent felony. At trial, Mr. Reid was convicted of several of the charges. All defendants are awaiting sentencing at this time."
The following is Mr. Witherspoon's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Walker v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 1998 WL 637298 (4th Cir. (S.C.) August 31, 1998);
(b)   Heyward v. Monroe, 1998 WL 841494, (4th Cir. (S.C.) December 7, 1998)."
The following is Mr. Witherspoon's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   United States v. Valerie Charley, 2006 WL 521735 (4th Cir. (S.C.) March 03, 2006);
(b)   United States v. Kevin Miller, 75 Fed. Appx. 128, 2003 WL 22039182 (4th Cir. (S.C.) September 02, 2002);
(c)   United States v. Kenyatte Brown, 148 Fed. Appx. 163, 2005 WL 2248712 (4th Cir. (S.C.) September 15, 2005);
(d)   United States v. Michael Rufus, 114 Fed. Appx.56, 2004 WL 2476486 (4th Cir. (S.C.) November 04, 2004);
(e)   United States v. Leroy Deveaux, 45 Fed. Appx. 249, 2002 WL 2012581 (4th Cir. (S.C.) September 04, 2002)."
Mr. Witherspoon reported he held the following public office:
"I was appointed Substitute Municipal Court Judge for the City of Columbia in August 1998. I served in this position until June 2000. During this time, I worked as an attorney for the Budget and Control Board. As a Substitute Municipal Court Judge, I did not issue any orders or opinions. "
Mr. Witherspoon further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"I ran for the Circuit Court, At-Large Seat Number 9 in September 2002. I was found qualified but not nominated by the Judicial Screening Committee."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Witherspoon's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Witherspoon to "be a very highly qualified and outstanding candidate, who would ably serve on the Circuit Court bench."
Mr. Witherspoon is married to Maggie Synthier Bracey Witherspoon. He has two children.
Mr. Witherspoon reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   Richland County Bar:

President January 2001 - December 2001;

Executive Committee January 1996 - December 2001;
(c)   Columbia Lawyers' Association:

President January 1995 - December 1997."
Mr. Witherspoon provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Salvation Army Board of Directors;
(b)   Leadership Columbia Alumni Association;
(c)   Richland County School District 1 mentor program;
(d)   Union Baptist Church;
(e)   Palmetto Legal Aide Board of Directors 1998 - 2001;
(f)   USC School of Law Compleat Lawyer Silver Medallion - 1999."
Mr. Witherspoon additionally reported:
"I believe that my diverse legal background would benefit me as a Circuit Court Judge. I have worked as a law enforcement officer, in private practice, in public service and over the last six (6) years, I have gained valuable courtroom experience as a federal prosecutor. I believe these experiences would be an attribute to me if I am selected as a Circuit Court Judge.
I have also tried to continue my involvement in civic and professional activities in addition to practicing law. I have served on several committees and boards including the Board of Grievances and Discipline, CLE, Diversity and Professional Responsibility, Long Range Planning Committee and Bar 's Nominating Committee. As a result of my bar and community service, I was awarded the Compleat Lawyer Silver Medallion Award by U.S.C. School of Law in 1999. The Silver Medallion is awarded to lawyers practicing less than fourteen (14) years for service to the legal profession and the community at large. The recipients of the award are chosen by the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, the Chief Judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the Dean of the Law School, the Executive Director of the South Carolina Bar and the President of the Law School Alumni Board.
These activities are important and beneficial to me in that they provide an opportunity to improve the profession of practicing law and improve my community. I believe that it is important that judges come from varied backgrounds and perspectives. Having involvement in professional and civic activities is a way of achieving that diversity of experience and allows me to gain valuable insight into other ideas and perspectives."
The Commission stated that Mr. Witherspoon's diverse legal experience in private practice and with state and federal government would serve him well on the Circuit Court bench. They also noted his able service to several volunteer and professional organizations. The Commission found him qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Deborah Brooks Durden meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge in the Administrative Law Court.
Ms. Durden was born on April 13, 1961. She is 45 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Durden 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. She has been licensed to practice law in the State of Alaska since 1993.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Durden.
Ms. Durden 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. Durden reported that she has made $175 in campaign expenditures for stationery and printing.
Ms. Durden 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. Durden 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. Durden to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Durden described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   SC Association of Counties Local Government Attorney's Institute, December 9, 2005;
(b)   SC Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Seminar, September 23, 2005;
(c)   Attorney ECF Training at federal District Court, July 5, 2005;
(d)   Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting, January 11-13, 2004;
(e)   Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE, September 14, 2004;
(f)   SCDOT Associate Counsel Condemnation Workshop, November 14, 2003;
(g)   SC Association of Counties Local Government Attorney's Institute, December 12, 2003;
(h)   Transportation Research Board Transportation Law Workshop, June 28-30, 2002;
(i)   SCDOT Associate Counsel Condemnation Workshop, November 2, 2001;
(j)   SC Association of Counties Local Government Attorney's Institute, December 7, 2001."
Ms. Durden reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"March 1, 2005, CLE International Eminent Domain Institute - Relocation Assistance, An Update on New Regulations. (I presented a segment of the CLE explaining the basics of relocation assistance benefits and how newly promulgated federal regulations would affect those benefits in the future.)
November 14, 2003, SCDOT Associate Counsel Workshop - Interplay Between Condemnation and Relocation Assistance Benefits. (I taught a segment of a CLE for attorneys who handle condemnation cases for SCDOT explaining relocation assistance benefits available to landowners and displaces and the interplay between those benefits and just compensation payments made in the condemnation litigation.)
November 2, 2001, SCDOT Associate Counsel Seminar - Handling FOIA and Discovery Requests - Strategies for Avoiding a Surprise at Trial."
Ms. Durden reported that she has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Durden did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Durden did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Durden has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Durden 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. Durden reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. Durden appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stabil ity:
Ms. Durden appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Durden was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1992.
Ms. Durden gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1991-1992, Judicial Law Clerk.
After graduation from USC law school and sitting for the South Carolina bar exam, I moved to Anchorage, Alaska where I served as law clerk to Alaska Superior Court Judge Karen Hunt from August 1991 to September 1992. Judge Hunt handled complex civil litigation and I performed legal research related to those cases and wrote memoranda of law and proposed orders on all motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. I also evaluated motions for injunctive relief file with the court.
I served as law clerk to Alaska Superior Court Judge John Reese from December 1992, to April 1993, handling family court matters. I reviewed motions filed with the court and recommended action on those motions. During this time I studied for the Alaska Bar exam and took that exam in January, 1993.
1993-1997, Private Practice.
In April 1993, I became an associate at Faulkner, Banfield, Doogan and Holmes' Anchorage office. Faulkner Banfield is a large firm with offices in Juneau, Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska representing primarily business clients. During my association with the firm I worked on Workers Compensation matters, professional liability cases, and tort cases. Approximately 50% of the cases I worked on were in the Federal District Court. I also successfully argued an appeal of a constitutional issue before the Alaska Supreme Court.
In 1994, my husband's service commitment to the U.S. Air Force ended and I left Faulkner Banfield so that he and I could move to South Carolina. I became an Associate at Gergel, Nickles & Grant (the firm is now Gergel, Nickles and Solomon). During my association with the firm from 1994 to 1997, I represented teachers and other employees in employment matters, and worked on motions and discovery in tort claims cases, Fair Labor Standards Act cases, and in the case challenging the Reapportionment of the South Carolina House of Representatives.
1997-Present, Government Service.
In August 1997, I accepted a position as Assistant Chief Counsel at the South Carolina Department of Transportation. While at SCDOT I have handled a wide variety of legal matters including condemnation cases, contract matters, legislative issues, and administrative law. I handle all contested cases at the Administrative Law Court for the department concerning the payment of relocation assistance benefits and approximately half of the contested cases concerning the certification of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. SCDOT has adopted a philosophy of using associate counsel to litigate condemnation cases. While I do not handle the litigation of those cases, I counsel agency staff and associate counsel on issues concerning condemnation and real estate law. Part of my responsibilities at SCDOT involve reviewing and analyzing legislation that is pending at the state legislature and serving as a liaison between the agency and the legislature. I regularly evaluate the effect of proposed statutory language, draft proposed legislation and amendments, and provide testimony before legislative subcommittees."
Ms. Durden further reported:
"I handle all contested cases at the Administrative Law Court for the Department of Transportation concerning the payment of Relocation Assistance benefits and approximately half of the contested cases concerning the certification of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. I handle an average of two matters per month before the Administrative Law Court. Approximately half of those are settled prior to a hearing and approximately one per month goes to a full hearing and decision by the Administrative Law Court.
In Disadvantaged Business Enterprise cases the issue is frequently an appeal of an SCDOT decision denying certification of a particular business as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. Certification qualifies a business for special consideration in highway construction contracts and is intended to assist women and minority business owners get businesses established. The issues litigated in those cases revolve around whether the woman or minority individual who is applying for the certification actually owns and controls the business as required by the federal regulations. Litigation of these cases is important to protect the integrity of the D.B.E. program and prevent sham businesses from usurping the benefits intended for those who are truly at a disadvantage.
In Relocation Assistance cases the issues litigated revolve around whether SCDOT has paid the proper amount of Relocation Assistance benefits. Particular questions I have litigated include whether benefits are available to an individual whose primary residence is somewhere other than the acquired property; what constitutes a comparable dwelling; and whether a business has been displaced by a change of driveway access to the property."
Ms. Durden reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   None;
(b)   State:     Once per month."
Ms. Durden reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:       100%;
(b)   Criminal:     0%;
(c)   Domestic:   0%."
Ms. Durden reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:       5%;
(b)   Non-jury:     95%."
Ms. Durden provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Durden's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Rae's Cleaners v. SCDOT, South Carolina Administrative Law Court; Final Order issued by Judge Ralph King Anderson, III on January 3, 2006. This was a Relocation Assistance Benefits contested case in which SCDOT's finding that Rae's Cleaners was not a displaced business entitled to relocation assistance benefits was challenged. The issue was whether a change in access to the business site allowing only right turns in and out of the business constituted a displacement of the business which would have entitled the owner to relocation assistance benefits. The matter was significant in light of the recent line of cases before the South Carolina Court of Appeals upholding damages related to restricted access to real property in condemnation cases. Judge Anderson affirmed SCDOT's decision denying benefits, holding that while a loss of access is a special injury that might entitle a landowner to just compensation in a condemnation case, it is not an acquisition entitling the landowner to relocation benefits where the acquisition of property did not affect the continued operation of the business.
(b)   Wetherill v. SCDOT, South Carolina Administrative Law Court; Final Order issued by Judge John D. Geathers on March 17, 2005. This was a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise contested case in which SCDOT denied DBE certification to a woman who applied for DBE certification for an engineering firm. The issue in the case was whether the putative owner had the necessary experience and expertise to control an engineering firm when she had no training or experience as an engineer. The Administrative Law Court upheld SCDOT's decision denying certification. This case is currently on appeal to the Circuit Court. The case is significant because the integrity of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program is compromised if businesses are admitted to the program which are in fact owned or controlled by non-disadvantaged individuals; those firms then usurp the financial advantages offered under the program from firms who are actually owned and controlled by women or minority individuals.
(c)   Allen v. SCDOT, South Carolina Administrative Law Court; Final Order issued by Judge John D. Geathers on January 13, 2006. This was a Relocation Assistance Benefits contested case in which SCDOT' s award of benefits was challenged by a displaced owner of a mobile home. The issue was whether the mobile home owner was entitled to enhanced benefits called Replacement Housing Benefits payable to persons who have owned and occupied a home for at least 180 days. In this case the property owner resided in North Carolina but kept the mobile home at Myrtle Beach as a vacation retreat. The Court upheld SCDOT's decision, holding that "occupancy" under the federal relocation assistance regulations refers to the place where the individual is domiciled and maintains a primary residence. This case is significant because the issue of whether "occupancy" is equivalent to domicile is not clearly spelled out in the relevant regulation section and had not been litigated in South Carolina.
(d)   Patton v. Eli Witt (not reported). This case was significant because it was a Family and Medical Leave Act case that came up soon after that act became effective and prior to the development of decisional law interpreting the act. During the discovery phase of the case the defendant filed for bankruptcy. I persisted in pursuing the damages due to my client through the bankruptcy and was eventually successful in obtaining the relief sought by the plaintiff.
(e)   Raih v. SCDOT, South Carolina Administrative Law Court; Final Order issued by Judge Ralph King Anderson, III on December 19, 2005. The issues in this contested case were the proper location of a comparable replacement dwelling used to calculate a replacement housing relocation assistance benefit and whether a licensed appraiser must be used to apportion the value of just compensation payments between residential and business uses of a property. The case was significant because it affirms SCDOT's method of apportioning just compensation payments made among the business and residential uses of a mixed-use property by calculating the percentage of area devoted to residential use and assigning value to the residence based on that same percentage of the appraised value of the entire property. The case is also significant because it establishes guidance for the agency concerning the interplay between proximity and comparability of a replacement dwelling. The petitioner argued that a closer property must be used to calculate benefits despite the fact that property was far superior to the apartment that was acquired from the Petitioner. The Administrative Law Court confirmed that where it is not feasible to locate a comparable replacement dwelling in the immediate neighborhood, it is appropriate to use a similar dwelling that is reasonably accessible to the displaced individual's business activity."
The following is Ms. Durden's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission; Supreme Court of Alaska; May 13, 1994. citation: 874 P. 2d 274 (Alaska, 1994) Cert. denied by Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 513 U.S. 979, 115 S. Ct. 460, 130 L. Ed. 2d 368, 63 USLW 3341, 63 USLW 3345 (1994). This case was significant because it dealt with constitutional questions of religious freedom as it relates to an individual's conduct in violating state prohibitions against housing discrimination based on marital status. I successfully argued that an individual's religious freedom was not violated by a statute that prohibited discrimination based on marital status. A Westlaw keycite search reveals that this case has been cited in 25 subsequent cases and in 216 secondary sources and briefs.
(b)   Allen et al v. Loadholt; United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I briefed this Fair Labor Standards Act case which settled prior to argument before the Court of Appeals. The issue in this case was whether Hampton County was properly paying its sheriff's deputies and jail employees who were styled as 'salaried' employees. The case was significant because it affected the pay overtime treatment of many individuals who were not paid overtime premium pay, but instead had salary adjustments made when they worked so much overtime that additional pay had to be granted to bring their pay up to minimum wage."
Ms. Durden has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Durden's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Durden to "be a very highly qualified and highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Administrative Law Court bench."
Ms. Durden is married to Wiley Kevin Durden. She has three children.
Ms. Durden reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Alaska Bar Association;
(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyer's Association."
Ms. Durden provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Trenholm Road United Methodist Church;
(b)   Girl Scout Troop Leader, 2001 to present."
The Commission commented on Ms. Durden's excellent grasp of legal issues and her understanding of an Administrative Law Judge's role. They noted that she is a highly regarded candidate. The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for election to the Administrative Law Court.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Paige J. Gossett meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge in the Administrative Law Court.
Ms. Gossett was born on June 12, 1969. She is 36 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Gossett provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1994.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Gossett.
Ms. Gossett 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. Gossett reported that she has made $216.94 in campaign expenditures for:
"Stationery and Cards:           $ 74.17 (01/16/06);

$112.26 (03/16/06);

Photograph:                 $ 27.00 (02/06/06);
Postage:                       $ 3.51 (various dates)."
Ms. Gossett 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. Gossett 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. Gossett to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Gossett described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"Since my admission to the Bar, I have annually fulfilled, and generally exceeded, all Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) and Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (LEPR) requirements. The seminars I have attended over the last five years are listed below:
04/12/05   Attorney Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Training;
09/23/05   South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association (SCAARLA) Educational Seminar;
11/07/05   South Carolina Regulated Utilities Seminar;
12/09/05   Tips from the Bench V;
07/08/04   South Carolina Law of Encumbrance;
10/01/04   South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association (SCAARLA) Meeting with Oath;
10/01/04   Revised Lawyer's Oath with South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association (SCAARLA);
11/14/03   Masters-in-Trial;
12/12/03   Tips from the Bench IV;
04/26/02   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association Continuing Legal Education 2002;
09/20/02   South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association (SCAARLA) Educational Seminar;
11/01/02   8th Annual Ethics Seminar;
11/16/01   South Carolina Ultimate Trial Notebook;
2001 - exact date unavailable Seminars Direct (Ethics)."
Ms. Gossett reported the following regarding law-related courses she has taught:
"While I have not taught seminars for continuing legal education credit, I personally prepared and conducted an educational seminar for a large corporate client relating to the substantial reforms regarding the regulation of public utilities contained in 2004 S.C. Act No. 175. These reforms had a significant impact on administrative and regulatory law in this area. The seminar consisted of approximately two hours of instructional time and included comprehensive written materials which I personally prepared. I conducted the seminar on three occasions for a total of approximately twenty to thirty attendees."
Ms. Gossett reported that she has published the following:
"(a)   State C ourt: A Friendlier Forum for Class Actions, 12 S.C. Lawyer, Sept./Oct. 2000 at 39-41."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Gossett did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Gossett did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Gossett has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Gossett 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. Gossett reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. Gossett appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Ms. Gossett appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Gossett was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1994.
Ms. Gossett gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"Upon completion of the bar exam I served for two years as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Henry M. Herlong, Jr., United States District Judge. As Judge Herlong's law clerk, I reviewed pleadings and legal memoranda, prepared memoranda for the judge's review and consideration, and drafted orders, honing my legal research and writing skills. I engaged in legal analysis and discussions with the judge regarding a variety of legal issues, both procedural and substantive.

Upon completion of my clerkship with Judge Herlong, I joined my firm, Willoughby & Hoefer, P.A., as an associate. I have been a partner since 2002. My practice areas have included general civil trial and appellate litigation as well as administrative and regulatory law. I have participated in cases in a wide variety of forums at all levels, including magistrate's court; state circuit court of common pleas; the Administrative Law Court; probate court; family court; the South Carolina Court of Appeals; the South Carolina Supreme Court, in both its appellate and original jurisdiction; federal district and circuit courts; and the United States Supreme Court. I have also represented clients in Alternate Dispute Resolution proceedings including both mediation and arbitration. Additionally, I have represented clients before administrative agencies. I have litigated a broad spectrum of civil cases, from simple breach of contract cases to complex ratemaking proceedings before the Public Service Commission of South Carolina.
Over the years my practice has consisted primarily of complex civil litigation. These cases generally involve very large sums of money and tend to span several years of intense and hard-fought litigation. For example, I have represented clients in class actions, certificate of need matters, complex ratemaking cases, and the most recent reapportionment litigation before a federal three-judge panel. I represent both plaintiffs and defendants. My client base reflects a broad spectrum ranging from individuals and small businesses to a Fortune 500 company. At various times over the course of years in private practice, my areas of focus have additionally included state and local tax litigation, transportation law, and telecommunications law.
Over the last three years, the percentage of my practice devoted to administrative and regulatory issues has gradually increased. I have represented clients in health care issues before the Department of Health and Environmental Control, tax matters before the Department of Revenue, and utility regulatory proceedings before the Public Service Commission of South Carolina. These matters have involved procedural and substantive technical issues commonly confronted by the Administrative Law Court."
Ms. Gossett further provided:
"A primary focus area of my practice is administrative and regulatory law. I regularly represent clients before administrative agencies and the Administrative Law Court ("ALC"). The primary agencies where my cases before the ALC have originated are the Department of Health and Environmental Control ("DHEC") and the Department of Revenue ("DOR"). For example, within the last five years I have litigated a significant case arising out of DHEC that involved substantive accounting issues involving the definition of expenditures constituting capital costs and procedural issues relating to DHEC's enforcement authority. Similarly, in another case I handled arising out of DOR, I litigated substantive contract and state income tax issues on behalf of a putative class of taxpayers. This case also involved the procedural issue of whether the taxpayers were required to exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking relief in circuit court.
As discussed above, I practice before nearly all courts and tribunals in the state and federal systems. As with all of these forums, my appearances before the Administrative Law Court have been occasional to frequent, depending on the level of activity of the case. For example, when I have had an active case pending before the ALC, my appearances there have been fairly frequent; however, some time may elapse between ALC cases when my caseload is comprised of cases pending in other forums.
Additionally, I would note that in recent years I have often represented clients before the Public Service Commission of South Carolina. While these cases are not reviewed by the Administrative Law Court under state law, the procedural and substantive issues addressed by the Public Service Commission are often very similar to those confronted by the ALC. Accordingly, if elected, this experience would serve me well as an ALJ."
Ms. Gossett reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   Occasional;
(b)   State:     Frequent."
Ms. Gossett reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:       98%;
(b)   Criminal:     0%;
(c)   Domestic:   2% (Appointed abuse and neglect cases)."
Ms. Gossett reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:       70% (Jury Roster); *
(b)   Non-jury:     30% (Non-Jury Roster or Non-Jury Forum).
*While a significant amount of my cases over the last five years have been 'jury cases' - i.e., those that would be tried to a jury rather than a court, my practice consists mainly of complex civil cases which generally are resolved either through dispositive legal motions or settlement, sometimes after trial has commenced. Accordingly, only one jury case has resulted in a jury verdict."
With regard to Ms. Gossett's service as counsel, she pro vided that she has "served in all three roles, but most often as 'second chair' in complex litigation matters. In the case I tried to a jury verdict I served as sole counsel."
The following is Ms. Gossett's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Ward v. State, 343 S.C.14, 538 S.E.2d 245 (2000) (Ward I), 356 S.C. 449, 590 S.E.2d 30 (2003) (Ward II), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 808 (2004).

In this case that was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court twice and also to the United States Supreme Court, I served as co-counsel with John M.S. Hoefer of my firm and A. Camden Lewis of Lewis, Babcock and Hawkins. We represented a class of approximately 65,000 federal retirees challenging the constitutionality of a state statute. The first appeal involved the administrative law issue of whether the taxpayers could sue directly in circuit court or whether they were required to first exhaust administrative remedies before the Department of Revenue and the Administrative Law Court. In a significant opinion in the field of administrative law, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required when the sole issue presented for determination was a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute. The second appeal involved the merits of the taxpayers' claims raising significant constitutional issues. The case was further appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which invited the input of the Solicitor General of the United States before declining review.
(b)   Colleton County Council v. McConnell, CA No. 3:01-3581-10 (2002). This action stemmed from the attempted reapportionment by the General Assembly of House, Senate, and Congressional districts following the 2000 census. It involved three separate actions that were considered in federal court before a three-judge panel pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. I served as a co-counsel with Reginald I. Lloyd and Charles F. Reid to represent the Honorable David H. Wilkins, then Speaker of the House, who was sued in his official legal capacity. The cases challenged the malapportionment of legislative and congressional districts following the Governor's veto of legislative redistricting bills. The cases involved significant questions of constitutional delegations of redistricting authority and presumptions, as well as interpretations of the requirements of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act issues were particularly significant due to the lack of clear direction from the United States Supreme Court on many issues arising under the Act.
(c)   East Cooper Regional Medical Center v. Department of Health and Environmental Control and Roper Mt. Pleasant Emergency Room and Diagnostic Center, 02-ALJ-07-0143-CC.

This action was a contested case before the Administrative Law Court arising from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. The case was significant because it involved efforts by one hospital to shut down a new facility opened by a competing hospital on the ground that it was constructed in violation of the State Certification of Need and Health Facility Licensure Act.
(d)   In re: Application of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company for Adjustments in the Company's Gas Rate Schedules and Tariffs, PSC Docket No. 2005-113-G, Order No. 2005-619 (October 31, 2005).

In this regulatory proceeding I represented SCE&G before the Public Service Commission of South Carolina in SCE&G's first application for an adjustment in its base natural gas rates in over sixteen years. The case was significant because it affected nearly 282,000 South Carolinians receiving natural gas service from SCE&G. Additionally, it involved numerous intervening parties and was one of the first rate cases handled by the newly created Office of Regulatory staff. The case involved complex issues of ratemaking, rate design, and finance such as cost of capital and return on equity.
(e)   Smith v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, CA No. 95-CP-26-1274 (Horry County Court of Common Pleas, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit).

In this case, I represented a class of consumers in circuit court in a breach of contract matter against their electric service provider. This case was significant because it affected nearly 5,000 South Carolinians and because it involved a substantial amount of money. I also represented consumers in related litigation that raised similar claims against fifteen defendants and affected an additional 15,000 South Carolina consumers. These cases were vigorously litigated over a span of nearly ten years."
The following is Ms. Gossett's account of five civil appeals she has personally handled:
"In all of the following cases, except as otherwise noted, I either wrote or significantly participated in the writing of the appellate briefs, and also substantially participated in the preparation for oral argument before the court.
(a)   Ward v. State, 343 S.C.14, 538 S.E.2d 245 (2000) (Ward I).

The South Carolina Supreme Court issued its first opinion in this case on November 6, 2000. In this case, I represented a class of approximately 65,000 federal retirees challenging the constitutionality of a state statute. This appeal, the first of two opinions by the Supreme Court in this case, involved the administrative law issue of whether the taxpayers could sue directly in circuit court or whether they were required to first exhaust administrative remedies before the Department of Revenue and the Administrative Law Court. In a significant opinion in the field of administrative law, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required when the sole issue presented for determination was a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute.
(b)   Ward v. State, 356 S.C. 449, 590 S.E.2d 30 (2003) (Ward II), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 808 (2004).

The South Carolina Supreme Court issued its second opinion in this case on December 8, 2003. The second appeal involved the merits of the taxpayers' claims raising significant constitutional issues. The case was further appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which invited the input of the Solicitor General of the United States before declining review.
(c)   Evans v. State, 344 S.C. 60, 543 S.E.2d 547 (2001).

The South Carolina Supreme Court issued its opinion in this case on March 12, 2001. This case involves a constitutional challenge to a state statute on behalf of state retirees. The appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, like Ward I, raised the administrative law question of when exhaustion of administrative remedies is required. Together the two cases provide guidance on this issue in the context of constitutional challenges and have been the subject of legal commentary. See Bonham, Geoffrey R., It Depends on the Question: Limits on the Jurisdiction of Administrative Agencies Over Constitutional Disputes, 13 S.C. Lawyer July/Aug. 2001 at 14. The case also involved the significant substantive question of whether the South Carolina Retirement Code constitutes a contract with state retirees, and whether the repeal of a state income tax exemption for state retirees violated the South Carolina and United States Constitutions. This case is still pending in circuit court on a petition for judicial review of the Administrative Law Court's order following the remand by the Supreme Court.
(d)   Carolina Water Service, Inc. v. Lexington County Joint Municipal Water & Sewer Commission, 625 S.E.2d 227 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006).

The South Carolina Court of Appeals issued its opinion in this case on January 20, 2006. This appeal involved the procedural issue of the propriety of the circuit court's lifting of a stay it had previously imposed pending resolution of a related administrative proceeding. The underlying case arises out of the efforts of the Joint Commission to condemn a wastewater treatment plant operated by Carolina Water Service. It involves significant constitutional issues relating to the Joint Commission's authority to exercise its eminent domain powers in these circumstances.
(e)   Porter v. South Carolina Public Service Commission and Palmetto Utilities, Inc., Memorandum Op. No. 2003-MO-023 (S.C. S.Ct. Mar. 10, 2003) (unpublished).

The Supreme Court issued its opinion in this case on March 10, 2003. In this case I participated in the preparation of the appellate briefs. This appeal arose out of an administrative ratemaking proceeding before the Public Service Commission of South Carolina."
Ms. Gossett has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Gossett's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Gossett to "be highly qualified and highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Administrative Law Court bench."
Ms. Gossett is married to Jeffrey Stephen Gossett. She has three children.
Ms. Gossett reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   Richland County Bar Association;
(c)   South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association;
(d)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association."
Ms. Gossett provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   United Way of the Midlands, Health and Recovery Council (2005-present);
(b)   Junior League of Columbia, Community Council (2005-present), Chair of Building Brighter Tomorrows Personnel Committee (2004-2005), Chair of Burton-Pack Elementary School Preschool Club Toy & Book Lending Library (2002-2003);
(c)   USC / Gateway Child Development & Research Center Advisory Board (2003-2004);
(d)   The Children's Place at ETV, Parents' Association, Past President and Vice President;
(e)   St. Joseph Catholic Church, Religious Education Classroom Assistant (2004)."
Ms. Gossett additionally provided:
"I believe that the three greatest strengths that I can bring to the position of Administrative Law Judge are my intellect, fairness, and breadth of experience. As a practicing lawyer, these are the qualities that I value most in a judge considering my case. In my experience, a judge who is smart and fair with a diverse legal background is best-suited to make decisions that increase the public' s confidence in our judiciary and the legal process.
I believe that I am well qualified for the Administrative Law Court because I possess these qualities. I have proven my intellect and ability to grasp issues quickly through my academic performance in both college and law school. In college, I graduated with magna cum laude honors and was a member of various academic honor societies such as Phi Beta Kappa and Mortar Board. Similarly, in law school, I finished third in my graduating class with cum laude honors and was a member of such legal honor societies as the Order of the Wig and Robe and the Order of the Coif. I received the American Jurisprudence Award (top grade) in seven courses during law school. I also served as the Associate Editor of the ABA Real Property, Probate & Trust Journal.

Furthermore, I believe that fairness is the single most important quality that the citizens of South Carolina value in the judiciary. Most litigants, even when confronted with an unfavorable ruling, will respect the court's decision if they believe that it was reached after a fair opportunity to present their evidence accompanied by thorough and thoughtful consideration by the judge without regard to the identity of the parties or lawyers and without the intent to reach a particular pre-determined result. If elected, I will make decisions based solely upon the evidence presented to me and the applicable law.
Finally, the breadth of my legal experience over the past twelve years has prepared me well to take on the responsibilities of a judge. As a law clerk to Judge Herlong, I had the unique opportunity to observe and learn from a federal judge with strict values of ethics and impartiality in both civil and criminal matters. My clerkship also provided me with valuable insight into how a judge should properly administer his or her chambers and the duties of office.
As a young lawyer in my firm, I had the opportunity to learn from experienced and proficient supervising attorneys with a strong sense of legal ethics. As a result of our small firm environment, I was assigned tasks that permitted me to develop and test my legal abilities early. While I was always closely supervised by more senior lawyers who provided constant guidance and support, I was permitted to take on responsibilities that many young lawyers do not face until much later in their career. After several years of practical experience, I in turn assumed the role of supervising and guiding the younger attorneys in our firm. My hard work and abilities were rewarded when I was made a partner in our firm in 2002.
I have litigated a wide variety of cases from simple small claims cases to complex civil litigation involving substantial sums. I have participated in virtually every forum, including magistrate's court, probate court, family court, the Administrative Law Court, the circuit court of common pleas, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, federal district and circuit courts, and the United States Supreme Court. I have represented clients in mediations, arbitrations, and proceedings before administrative agencies. I have either raised or opposed an expansive array of civil motions in these courts. I have shepherded clients to decisions in merits hearings in non-jury matters and to either a jury verdict or settlement in jury cases. I believe that this breadth of experience would serve me well, if elected, in fulfilling my duties as an Administrative Law Judge."
The Commission noted Ms. Gossett's impeccable academic credentials and broad legal experience in private practice. They commented on her outstanding temperament and demeanor which she exhibited at the Public Hearing. The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for election to the Administrative Law Court.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Shirley C. Robinson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge in the Administrative Law Court.
Ms. Robinson was born on March 14, 1951. She is 55 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Robinson 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. 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 not made any campaign expenditures.
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 past 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)   SC Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Seminar - September 21, 2001;

(f)   SCAGO Ethics for Government Lawyers - October 26, 2001;

(g)   2001 SC Local Government Attorney's Institute - December 27, 2001;

(h)   The Ethics Reform Act - September 11, 2002;

(i)   SC Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Seminar - September 20, 2002;

(j)   2002 SC Local Government Attorney's Institute - December 13, 2002;

(k)   SC Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Seminar - September 26, 2003;

(l)   2003 SC Local Government Attorney's Institute - December 12, 2003;

(m)   SC Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Seminar - October 1, 2004;

(n)   SC Black Lawyers Association Annual Summit and Retreat - October 22, 2004;
(o)   2004 SC Local Government Attorney's Institute - December 10, 2004;
(p)   Preparing Communities for Public Health Emergencies - March 18, 2005;
(q)   SC Administrative and Regulatory Law Association Educational Seminar - September 23, 2005;
(r)   Ethics for Government Lawyers - November 18, 2005;
(s)   2005 SC Local Government Attorney's Institute - December 9, 2005."
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 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 is 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.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Robinson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.
Ms. Robinson gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"1991- Law Firm of Edwards and Associates.

Columbia, South Carolina
- Associate (worked as Law Clerk prior to Law School Graduation) Involved in general practice primarily in the civil area, including family court cases, personal injury and workers' compensation cases.

1991-1992 - 8th Circuit Solicitor's Office.

Greenwood, South Carolina

Assistant Solicitor
- Served as 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, South Carolina

Executive Director
- Served the various needs of the members which ranged from responding to constituent needs, research, speech writing, management of the office and staff, and fund raising.

1995-2000 - Law Offices of Newman & Sabb, PA.

Columbia, South Carolina

Senior Associate
- Involved in general practice primarily in areas of family law, workers' 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, South Carolina

Senior Associate
- Name of firm changed following Clifton Newman's election to the Circuit Court Bench. My areas of practice remained the same with the exception that I assumed responsibility for management of the office and staff.

2000-Present - SC Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation.

Columbia, South Carolina

Attorney/Hearing Advisor
- Legal advisor to professional and occupational licensing boards providing guidance on the manner in which contested disciplinary hearings are to be conducted. These regulatory boards sit as quasi-judicial bodies while conducting disciplinary hearings involving licensees who are alleged to have violated some provision of the respective board's practice act. My responsibilities include ensuring that contested hearings are conducted in accordance with the requirements SC Administrative Procedures Act (the APA), due process requirements, and the rules of evidence applied in SC civil courts. I am also responsible for preparation of final orders stating the findings of fact, conclusions of law and sanctions imposed, if appropriate."
Ms. Robinson further reported:
"My first experience appearing before an Administrative Law Court judge was approximately seven years ago when I appeared before Judge Ray Stevens representing clients who were opposed to the locating of a hog farm near their home. The hog farm was approved by DHEC, but because my clients opposed the approval, a contested hearing was held before an administrative law judge. Additionally, for the past five years I have served as an attorney/advisor to the 37 licensing and regulatory boards that compose the SC Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. As the attorney/advisor, my role is to advise the boards as they conduct contested hearings. On an average, I participate in 100 to 125 contested hearings annually, 100% of which could potentially go before the Administrative Law Court for appellant review. However, my estimate is that approximately 5-10% of the cases are actually appealed, with less than 1% of the appealed cases being reversed or referred back to a board for further proceedings.
Our contested hearings are conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (the APA), applying the same rules of evidence and standard of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that governs contested hearings heard by administrative law judges. As the advisor, I also ensure that the licensee's right to due process is not violated, and that written orders are timely issued, normally not more than 30 days following the date of the hearing."
Ms. Robinson reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   None. However, prior to leaving private practice, I appeared in Federal Bankruptcy Court on a weekly basis;
(b)   State:     None. However, prior to leaving private practice, I appeared in family court on a weekly basis."
Ms. Robinson reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:       100% (60% prior to leaving private practice);
(b)   Criminal:     0%;
(c)   Domestic:   0% (Was 40% prior to leaving private practice)."
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%."
With regards to Ms. Robinson's service as counsel, she provided that she has "most often served as sole counsel on most cases, and occasionally as associate counsel in more complex cases. Served as sole counsel on most cases, and occasionally as associate counsel in more complex cases. This response is based upon my practice in trial court prior to my leaving private practice."
The following is Ms. Robinson's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Mollie A. Brooks, et al. v. SC Department of Health and Environmental Control, et. al.

-Case was significant to me because it represented my first contested 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 Count Probate Court. The personal representative sought to exclude my client as an heir by asserting that she was not the natural child of the decedent nor had she been legally adopted by the decedent. Prior to his death, the decedent caused his name to be added to my client's birth certificate and he raised her as if she was his natural child, although there was evidence that the decedent was the natural father, who remains unknown.
(c)   Manson Robinson, Jr., et al. v. John Q. Hammond Corporation, et al.

-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 trial was scheduled to begin.
(d)   Page v. Page

-The case was significant because of the highly contested nature of the dispute between the parties over custody of their young daughter, and the case was well litigated on both sides.
(e)   McFadden v. McFadden

-The case was significant because it was also highly contested with allegation of marital misconduct from both parties, and because the case was further complicated by opposing counsel whose actions, in my opinion, did not serve the best interests of the parties or the parties' children."
The following is Ms. Robinson's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   Brantley v. Brantley, South Carolina Court of Appeals, decision issued on March 13, 2000.
(b)   Jones v. Jones, South Carolina Court of Appeals, decision issued on October 1, 1998.
(c)   Schumpert v. Estate of Pearl Schumpert Jenkins, South Carolina Court of Appeals, decision issued May 19, 1997."
Ms. Robinson reported that she had not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Ms. Robinson further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"I was an unsuccessful candidate for the Administrative Law Court in 2005. The election was held on February 2, 2005, and I did not have sufficient votes to win that election."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Robinson's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Ms. Robinson to "be a very highly qualified and highly regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Administrative Law Court bench."
Ms. Robinson is not married. She has one child from a previous marriage.
Ms. Robinson reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar:

-Administrative & Regulatory Law Committee;

-Access to Justice Committee;
(b)   South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association;
(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyer's Association;
(d)   South Carolina Black Lawyers Association;
(e)   Formerly a member of the Richland County Bar;
(f)   Formerly a member of the Columbia Lawyer Association."
Ms. Robinson provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Board of Directors, Columbia Bethlehem Community Center (Personnel Committee Chairman);
(b)   James L. Belin Trust Board of Trustees (Board Secretary);
(c)   Formerly served on Babynet Interagency Coordinating Council (appointed by former Governor Carroll Campbell);
(d)   Recipient of Am Jur Award in Contracts."
Ms. Robinson additionally reported:
"My initial interest in serving on the Administrative Law Court began when I appeared before Judge Ray Stevens representing clients who opposed a hog farm being placed near their home. It was at this time that I realized that cases coming before this Court in some way impact most, if not all, citizens of South Carolina. Since then, I've concentrated on expanding my knowledge of administrative law by attending relevant seminars, and keeping abreast of court decisions. Also, my employment with the SC Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation has only strengthened my desire, and made me realize that my diverse background and experiences make me an excellent fit for the Administrative Law Court. At this point in my life, I've reached a level of maturity that only come with time, and acquired a certain amount of wisdom from my experiences and the experiences of others. It has been my observation that judges who possess this maturity and wisdom, coupled with the requisite training and knowledge, are more apt to apply the law and exercise their judicial authority in a fair and impartial manner. During my lifetime, I have progressed from being the product of a segregated South Carolina, to seeing a South Carolina in which I believe that I can achieve my goal of one day joining others who serve on the Administrative Law Court."
The Commission stated that Ms. Robinson was noted as an insightful attorney with a calm demeanor that would assist her in ably serving as a Judge. They stated that her current position for the past six years as a Hearing Advisor at Labor, Licensing and Regulation would equip her well on the Administrative Law Court. The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for election to the Administrative Law Court.

The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:
J. Michelle Childs             Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 9
Honorable John D. Geathers     Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 9
William K. Witherspoon       Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 9
Deborah Brooks Durden       Administrative Law Court, Seat 5
Paige J. Gossett               Administrative Law Court, Seat 5
Shirley C. Robinson           Administrative Law Court, Seat 5

Respectfully submitted,
Representative Delleney, Jr.       Senator James H. Ritchie, Jr.
Senator Robert Ford             Representative Doug Smith
Senator Ray Cleary               Representative Fletcher N. Smith, Jr.
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester       Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Professor John P. Freeman       Mr. Richard S. Fisher

On motion of Senator RITCHIE, with unanimous consent, the report was ordered printed in the Journal.

H. 5065 (Word version) -- Rep. Hayes: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAXES WHICH WERE IMPOSED IN DILLON COUNTY FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 ARE REIMPOSED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007.

By prior motion of Senator ELLIOTT, with unanimous consent

At 11:35 A.M., on motion of Senator COURSON, the Senate adjourned to meet next Monday, May 8, 2006, at 2:00 P.M.

This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 1:08 P.M.