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,

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

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

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;

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.

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

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

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

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:

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

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.

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).

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

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.

(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.

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

Judge Geathers gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

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

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.

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;

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

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."

(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;

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

(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

(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.

$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:

"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

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

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.

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

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

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;

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

(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;

"(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;

"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

-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.

-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.

-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

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 1:10 P.M.