SENATE JOURNAL 05/02/2008 - South Carolina Legislature Online

South Carolina General Assembly
117th Session, 2007-2008
Journal of the Senate

Friday, May 2, 2008
(Local Session)

~~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 JACKSON.

HOUSE BILLS RETURNED

The following House Bills were read the third time and ordered returned to the House with amendments:

H. 4876 (Word version) -- Reps. Cooper and Cotty: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, TO COMPLY WITH VARIOUS QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND TO PROVIDE FOR QUALIFIED EXCESS BENEFIT ARRANGEMENTS.
(Abbreviated title)

By prior motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, with unanimous consent

H. 3084 (Word version) -- Reps. Clemmons and Witherspoon: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS OF TERMS CONTAINED IN CERTAIN PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS, AND WHOLESALERS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS "MANUFACTURER", "DEALERSHIP FACILITIES", "FRANCHISE", AND "DEALER", AND TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR THE TERMS "MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP" AND "DEPARTMENT"; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-40, RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE A MANUFACTURER WHO SEEKS TO ENTER INTO A FRANCHISE ESTABLISHING AN ADDITIONAL NEW MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP OR RELOCATING AN EXISTING NEW MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP IN A RELEVANT MARKET AREA WHERE THIS LINE MAKE IS REPRESENTED MUST FOLLOW, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXISTING PROCEDURE AND ESTABLISH A NEW PROCEDURE; TO ADD SECTION 56-16-45 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES TO OWN, OPERATE, OR CONTROL A MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP OR TO ESTABLISH AN ADDITIONAL DEALER OR MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES TO COMPETE UNFAIRLY WITH A MOTORCYCLE DEALER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES TO OWN A FACILITY THAT ENGAGES PRIMARILY IN THE REPAIR OF MOTORCYCLES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-50, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF A MOTORCYCLE DEALER UPON TERMINATION, NONRENEWAL, OR CANCELLATION OF A FRANCHISE BY A MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE, TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 56-16-45 ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROVISION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MOTORCYCLE DEALER MUST BE COMPENSATED FOR THE REASONABLE GOOD WILL FOR THE FRANCHISE, AND TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DEALER MAY BE COMPENSATED; TO ADD SECTION 56-16-85 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS, AND WHOLESALERS APPLY TO ALL WRITTEN AND ORAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN A MANUFACTURER, FACTORY BRANCH, DISTRIBUTOR BRANCH, DISTRIBUTOR, WHOLESALER, OR FRANCHISOR WITH A MOTORCYCLE DEALER; TO ADD SECTION 56-16-86 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A DEALERSHIP MAY CONTRACT WITH AN ON-LINE ELECTRONIC SERVICE TO PROVIDE MOTORCYCLES TO CONSUMERS IN THIS STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-100, RELATING TO CERTAIN PRACTICES ENGAGED IN BY A MANUFACTURER, FACTORY BRANCH, FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE, OR MOTORCYCLE DEALER WHICH ARE UNLAWFUL, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROVISION ALSO APPLIES TO WHOLESALERS AND WHOLESALER REPRESENTATIVES, TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES, AND TO PROVIDE THE STANDARD OF PROOF THAT A MANUFACTURER MUST BEAR IN A PROCEEDING THAT ARISES PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-200, RELATING TO RELIEF AVAILABLE TO PERSONS INJURED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND TO PROVIDE THAT PUNITIVE DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED IF A DEFENDANT HAS ACTED IN BAD FAITH; TO ADD SECTION 56-16-205 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION THAT ARISES OUT OF A PROVISION RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS, AND WHOLESALERS; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-210, RELATING TO CONTRACTS THAT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS, AND WHOLESALERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS STATE'S LAW APPLIES TO ANY FRANCHISE FOR A DEALERSHIP LOCATED IN THIS STATE, AND THAT VENUE IS IN THIS STATE FOR AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THESE PROVISIONS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 56-16-70, RELATING TO A DEALER'S VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION, NONRENEWAL, OR TERMINATION OF A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.

By prior motion of Senator GROOMS, with unanimous consent

THIRD READING BILLS

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

S. 252 (Word version) -- Senator Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-3-155 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVISIONS OF LAW REQUIRING THE CESSATION OF ALIMONY AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT UPON THE REMARRIAGE OF THE SUPPORTED SPOUSE, A REMARRIAGE OF THE SUPPORTED SPOUSE WHICH IS LATER ANNULLED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SHALL CAUSE THE CESSATION OF ALIMONY OR SPOUSAL SUPPORT; TO PROVIDE THAT PARTIES MAY ENTER INTO A CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT CONTRARY TO THIS SECTION; AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM AN ORDER TO PAY ALIMONY OR SPOUSAL SUPPORT IF THE ORDER REINSTATED ALIMONY OR SPOUSAL SUPPORT TO A FORMER SPOUSE WHOSE REMARRIAGE WAS LATER ANNULLED.

By prior motion of Senator KNOTTS, with unanimous consent

S. 617 (Word version) -- Senators Fair and Verdin: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 56 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO DRIVER'S LICENSES, BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-186, TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO OPERATES A MOTOR VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON A DRIVER'S LICENSE ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 56-1-50, 56-1-175, OR 56-1-180 IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND MUST BE FINED NOT MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS, THE COURT MAY SUSPEND ALL OR PART OF THE SENTENCE CONDITIONED UPON THE OFFENDER COMPLETING, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT, COMMUNITY SERVICE, PUBLIC SERVICE, OR A SAFE DRIVING COURSE, TO PROVIDE ENHANCED PENALTIES IF GREAT BODILY INJURY RESULTED FROM AN ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A VIOLATION OF THE RESTRICTIONS; AND TO ADD SECTION 56-1-187, TO PROVIDE THAT A PARENT OR GUARDIAN MAY NOT KNOWINGLY PERMIT HIS DEPENDENT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF HIS DEPENDENT'S DRIVER'S LICENSE RESTRICTIONS OR TO KNOWINGLY PERMIT HIS DEPENDENT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR A VIOLATION.

By prior motion of Senator MALLOY, with unanimous consent

S. 1129 (Word version) -- Senators Thomas, Jackson, Lourie, Ford and Reese: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 60 TO TITLE 38 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA HEALTHNET PROGRAM"; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF A FIVE-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE THE AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE TO EMPLOYEES REGARDLESS OF HEALTH STATUS OR CLAIMS EXPERIENCE, PREVENT ABUSIVE RATING PRACTICES AND REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF RATING PRACTICES TO PURCHASERS, ESTABLISH RULES REGARDING RENEWAL OF COVERAGE, LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF PREEXISTING CONDITIONS EXCLUSIONS, ASSURE FAIR ACCESS TO HEALTH PLANS AND IMPROVE OVERALL FAIRNESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET; TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPOSITION AND AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; TO PROVIDE FAIR MARKETING STANDARDS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA FOR PLAN ADMINISTRATION IN THE PLAN OF OPERATION; TO PROVIDE FOR RATES; TO PROVIDE FOR PROVIDER PARTICIPATION; TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE OF THE CHAPTER; TO PROVIDE THAT HEALTH INSURERS SHALL OFFER AND MARKET PLANS DEVELOPED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA HEALTHNET PROGRAM WHO ARE ELIGIBLE; TO PROVIDE FOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN STANDARDS AND PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION; TO PROVIDE FOR ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS; TO PROVIDE FOR TERMINATION AND NONRENEWAL OF COVERAGE; TO PROVIDE FOR LOSS DATA TO BE REPORTED TO THE PROGRAM; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 60, TITLE 38 ADDED BY THIS ACT.

By prior motion of Senators MALLOY and THOMAS, with unanimous consent

REPORT RECEIVED
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Report of Candidate Qualifications

Date Draft Report Issued: Thursday, May 1, 2008
Date and Time Final Report Issued: 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 12:00 Noon.

Judicial Merit Selection Commission

Rep. F.G. Delleney , Jr., Chairman Jane O. Shuler, Chief Counsel
Sen. James H. Ritchie, Jr., V-Chairman
Sen. Robert Ford Bradley S. Wright
John P. Freeman Patrick G. Dennis
John Davis Harrell Bonnie B. Goldsmith
Sen. John M. "Jake" Knotts, Jr. Jennifer Parrish Robinson
Amy Johnson McLester House of Representatives Counsel
H. Donald Sellers Post Office Box 142 J.J. Gentry
Rep. Doug Smith Columbia, South Carolina 29202 S. Phillip Lenski
Rep. Fletcher N. Smith, Jr. (803) 212-6092 Senate Counsel

May 1, 2008

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 6, 2008. 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 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. 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 Jane Shuler, Chief Counsel, (T-Th) at 212-6629.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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

Judicial Merit Selection Commission

May 1, 2008

Members of the South Carolina General Assembly
South Carolina State House
Columbia, South Carolina

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 2008 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, (T-Th) at 212-6629.

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

INTRODUCTION

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 or her completed and sworn questionnaire.

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

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

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

John D. Geathers
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Geathers meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Geathers was born in 1961. He is 47 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, and a licensed attorney in 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 $25 in campaign expenditures for copying.
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:

"(a) 2002: Masters in Trial; Tips From Bench II;

(b) 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;

(d) 2005: Fourth Circuit Update; Barnes Symposium on Religion; Workers Comp Update; Tort Law Update;

(e) 2006: Writing Credit: John D. Geathers & Justin R. Werner, The Regulation of Alcoholic Beverages in South Carolina (2007);

(f) 2007: Writing Credit: John D. Geathers & Justin R. Werner, The Regulation;

(g) Alcoholic Beverages in South Carolina (2007); Ethics Course of Prof. Dershowitz and Ethics in the Electronic Age."
Judge Geathers reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "Lectured at CLE: Appellate Practice in SC, April 30, 1999. Lectured at CLE: The CON Contested Case, May 2, 2003; Lectured for SC Environmental Class, USC Law School, Jan. 28, 2003 and Jan. 16, 2004; Lectured at Bridge The Gap, May 2005."
Judge Geathers reported that he has published the following:

"(a) John D. Geathers & Justin R. Werner, The Regulation Of Alcoholic Beverages in South Carolina (2007);

(b) John D. Geathers, 'The Matter Does Not Appear to Me Now as It Appears to Have Appeared to Me Then': Motions for Reconsideration Before the ALJ Division, S.C. LAW, Nov. 2002, at 27;

(c) 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);

(d) John D. Geathers and Justin R. Werner, 'An Inglorious Fiction': The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South Carolina, S.C. TRIAL LAW. BULL., Fall 2003, at 14 (Adaptation from article cited above)."
(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 prior to his service on the bench he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Geathers appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Geathers appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Geathers was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.

He 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 twelve years."

Judge Geathers further reported:

"I am in 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, probation, parole disputes, and motor vehicle DUI cases. 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; and as to DMV cases, the matters involve the suspension of driver's licenses for DUI .

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. Further, in my capacity as an ALJ, I apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in contested case matters and the substantial evidence test in appellate cases that come before me-the same standards of review employed by the Court of Appeals. I believe my experience as an Administrative Law Judge, especially the extensive writing responsibilities and the appellate adjudications, will translate well on the Court of Appeals. 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, appellate rules of practice, and advance sheets published over the last year."
Judge Geathers reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

Judge Geathers provided the following with regard to his service as co-counsel, lead counsel, or sole counsel prior to his election to the bench:

Judge Geathers provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(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, 358S.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 be excluded from real estate valuation of golf course property for ad valorem tax purposes), cited in Findings of 2005 Act 149, S589;

(c) Sierra Club v. SC Dep't of Health & Envt'l. Control and Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC, No. 04-ALJ-07-0126-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Court Oct. 20005) (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. Admin. 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) Lexington County Health Services District, Inc., d/b/a Lexington Medical Center v. S.C. Health & Envtl. Control Sisters of Charity Providence Hospital and Palmetto Health Alliance, Palmetto Health Richland, No. 04-AlJ-07-0365-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. Sept. 15 2006) (petitioner challenged the denial of its Certificate of Need application for the development of an open-heart surgery program and therapeutic cardiac catheterization program)."

Judge Geathers further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies: "Most recently, I was qualified and nominated for election to the Court of Appeals by the Commission for the judicial elections held on February 6, 2008. I withdrew my candidacy. Also, I was qualified and nominated for election to the circuit court in 2006. I withdrew my candidacy. I was also qualified for the circuit court on another occasion."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Geathers to be "a very highly qualified and most outstanding regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals 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 (admitted 1986);

(b) North Carolina Bar (admitted 1992);

The Commission commented that Judge Geathers is an exceptional candidate who would bring honor and dignity to the bench. They noted his strong academic ability as evidenced by his outstanding performance on the Commission's Practice and Procedure exam. They further noted that his professional demeanor and respect for the legal system and litigants would make him an able appellate court judge.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Geathers qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

Robert N. Jenkins, Sr.
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jenkins meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Jenkins was born in 1947. He is 60 years old and a resident of Travelers Rest, South Carolina. Judge Jenkins 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 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jenkins.
Judge Jenkins 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 Jenkins reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Jenkins 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 Jenkins 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 Jenkins to be intelligent and knowledgeable. However, his performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions did not meet expectations.
Judge Jenkins described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Family Law Part - I 1/24/03;

(b) Family Law Part - II 1/24/03;

(d) 66th Annual Conference 7/20/03;

(e) 2003 Annual Conference 8/07/03;

(f) Judicial Conference 8/21/03;

(g) Family Law Section Meeting 1/23/04;

(h) Family Court Judges Conference 4/28/04;

(i) Judicial Conference 8/19/04;

(j) Judicial Oath of Office 8/19/04;

(k) Advance Family Law 10/24/04;

(l) Family Law Section 1/21/05;

(m) 2005 Family Court Judges 4/27/05;

(n) 68th Annual Conference Update 7/17-20/05;

(o) 2005 Annual Judicial Conference 8/24/05;

(p) South Carolina Family Court Bench 12/2/05;

(q) Family Law Section 1/26/06;

(r) Family Court Judges Conference 4/26/06;

(s) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/06;

(t) South Carolina Family Court Bench 12/01/06;

(u) Family Court Judges Conference 4/26/07;

(v) NCJFCJ 70th Annual Conference 7/23-25/07;

(w) Annual Judicial Conference 8/22/07;

(x) Access to Justice Conference 11/1-3/07;

(y) South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar 12/7/07."
Judge Jenkins reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have taught the Juvenile Law/Pre-Trial Diversion Course through the sponsorship of the Department of Youth Services and the local Solicitor's Office. It was a ten (10) week course designed to teach juveniles between ages 13-16 responsible civil conduct under the law; giving them exposures through site visits and guest presenters on law enforcement functions, (1986-88). I have served as a presenter for the SBA COMMITTEE for Indigent Representation on the topic of Judicial Responses to PRO SE Representation (1998). I have served as a presenter for the Family Court Judges Conference on topic of Judicial Ethics. (1998). I have served as a CLE presenter for programs sponsored by the S.C. Black Lawyers Association 2001, 2003 and 2006."
Judge Jenkins reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Jenkins 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 Jenkins reported that prior to his service on the bench he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Jenkins reported the following military service:

"8/6 - Reg. Air Force, E-5 (Staff Sergeant) AFXXXXXXXX/SSNXXX-XX-XXXX. In active reserve - 6/69 thru 8/72; Honorable Discharge: 8/72."

Judge Jenkins reported that he has held the following public office:

"(a) 1979-1996 - Director, Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc. Appointed through selection by quasi-public Board of Directors;

(b) 1984-86 - State Advisory Committee on Workers Compensation Laws - Appointed by the Governor of South Carolina;

(d) 1991-1996 - The Citadel Board of Visitors - by designation for the State Superintendent of Education;

(e) 1993-1996 - Board of Directors, South Carolina Families for Kids -Appointment by Board of Directors."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Jenkins appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Jenkins appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Jenkins was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

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

"1976-79: Engaged in the active practice of law as a Staff Attorney/Managing Attorney with Legal Services Agency headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina (NLAP, Inc.). Provided direct legal assistance to indigent clients in the areas of Family Law (50%), State/Federal Housing Law (20%), State/Federal Public Benefit Laws (15%), and State/Federal Consumer Law involved in Claim & Delivery and Deficiency Suits (10)%). Other areas of service provided included the preparation of wills and deeds; power of attorneys for clients financial affairs. Yearly caseload exceeded 300 cases. In this position, I also coordinated the expansion of offices to Georgetown, Kingstree and Beaufort Counties. In addition, coordinated the attorneys' weekly office schedule for client intake and served as the office liaison with the local courts. The office yearly caseload exceeded 5,000 cases.

1979-95: Engaged in the active practice of law as an Attorney/Administrator titled: Director/General Counsel for Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc. in Greenville South Carolina. Fifty percent of time was devoted to client practice in association with 13 staff attorneys in the areas of: Family Law Practice (50%), Federal Consumer Law (10%) and other legal services associated with the practice of Poverty Law. I was responsible for the legal services provided through offices located in Greenville, Anderson, and Greenwood, serving those areas and the adjoining counties of Edgefield, McCormick, Abbeville, Oconee and Pickens. The yearly total caseload exceeded 4,000 cases.

Served as legal counsel for numerous local community organizations whose missions are to improve the lives of people in poverty. Examples include: Greenville's Child, Inc., Save Our Sons, Neighborhoods In Action, The Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation, and Brockwood Senior Housing Corporation.

Served as an attorney member on the Kellogg Bar & Bench Sub-Committee of Judicial Administrative Policy, recommending Family Court Rule changes affecting disposition of cases where the State is involved in establishing permanent placement for Foster Care children (1993-on-going).

I was responsible for the hiring and training of all staff attorneys. I was responsible for public relations with the court system and the community. I served as liaison to the local state and national bar associations.

I was responsible for managing a yearly operating budget of over one million dollars and served as the general counsel for the corporation's financial affairs with state/federal government and other regulating bodies."
Judge Jenkins reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: Not frequent;

(b) State: Frequent."
Judge Jenkins reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 65%;

(b) Criminal: 0%;

(c) Domestic: 35%."
Judge Jenkins reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 2%;

(b) Non-jury: 98%."
Judge Jenkins provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Jenkins' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a) Fieldcrest Tenants Association, et al. v. Housing Authority of Greenville, U.S. District Ct., Greenville - 1980. This case involved the prosecution of Due Process rights of public housing tenants against irregular conduct and practices of public housing management in setting improper rent, improper assessments for maintenance repairs and causing wide spread evictions for improper reasons. Prosecuted as a class action, the matter was successfully resolved by court consent in favor of all families living in Greenville Public Housing. It resulted in better management practices which gave proper respect for the leasehold right of public tenants;

(b) John Plumley, et al. v. School District of Greenville and State Board of Education, U.S. 4th Cir. (Unpublished 1982, #81-1894). This case was important because right to attorneys fees by staff lawyers were permitted at reasonable levels where prosecution is successful under Section 1983 of the federal civil statute;

(c) Greenville Housing Auth. v. Jessie Salters, 316 S.E. 2d. 718, 281.SC 608 (S.C. App. 1984). This case is important because it involved preventing a 64 year old lady who lived in public housing all her life from being made homeless by ejectment action of the housing authority based on circumstances beyond her control;

(d) Jenkins, et. al. v. American Modern Homes, et al., 90-10-5549 (Cir. Ct. - Charleston County). This case involved seeking to enforce proper hazard insurance coverage for Hugo related damages against a claim of exclusion due to alleged flood damages. The issues were successfully resolved in clients favor after extensive discovery and trial preparation, thus preventing a homeless outcome for clients. (1990);

(e) Hatchcock and Shuly v.Tammy McKensie, 94-CP-23-1336 (Cir. Ct. - Greenville) on Supersedeas to S.C. Supreme Court. This case involved the enforcement of clients right to continue possession of premises under the HUD Section 8 Housing Subsidy Program against improper ejectment proceeding brought by landlord. The Client's mental condition complicated resolution of the issues (client is covered under the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). Case resolved favorable to interest of client. (1994)."

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

"(a) Creel v. Miles, In re: Dianne Mary Miles, Supreme Court unpublished memorandum #79-179. This case involved an unsuccessful attempt to get practical compliance with the ten day hearing rule in cases where a minor has been taken into protective custody through DSS and law enforcement to protect rights of the parent;

(b) Public Savings Life Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 250 S.E.2d 926, 289 S.C. 153 (1979);

(c) Greenville Housing Auth. v. Jessie Salters, 316 S.E. 2d. 718, 281 SC 608 (S.C. App. 1984). This case is important because it involved preventing a 65 year old lady who lived in public housing all her life from being made homeless by ejectment action of the housing authority based on circumstances beyond her control;

(d) Hatchcock and Shuly v.Tammy McKensie, 94-CP-23-1336 (Cir. Ct. - Greenville) on Supersedeas to S.C. Supreme Court. This case involved the enforcement of clients' right to continue possession of premises under the HUD Section 8 Housing Subsidy Program against improper ejectment proceeding brought by landlord. The Client's mental condition complicated resolution of the issues (client is covered under the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). Case resolved favorable to interest of client. (1994)."

Judge Jenkins reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Jenkins reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"Family Court Judge Seat #5 in the Thirteenth (13th) Judicial Circuit. 1996 - Present. I am now serving as a Circuit Family Court Judge for the 13th Judicial Circuit. My current term is through June 2014. This is a court of limited jurisdiction by statute covering marital litigation, juvenile cases, child dependency cases and all other domestic relations issues."

Judge Jenkins provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) Rourk v. Rourk, 95-DR-95-08-1178 - Charleston.
T.P.R. (Private Action) (Termination of Parental Rights).
The decision disallows termination based on application of S.C. law;

(b) Purdy v. Purdy, (578 S.E.2d. 30, 356 S.C.400 (S.C. App. 2003) Beaufort.

This case involves the issue of whether the Court erred in refusing to terminate the child support obligation of a father where the father claims that his daughter, although less than seventeen, was an emancipated child by other circumstances. The appeals Court affirmed;

This case involves the Court's treatment of equitable division of marital property in a divorce action. It also involved whether some of the property was non-marital. The appeals Court affirmed in part; modified in part; reversed and remanded in part;

(d) SCDSS v. Evans, et al., Greenville 95-DR-23-5300, 97-DR-23-1073.

T.P.R. (Public Action) (Termination of Parental Rights).

The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application;

(e) SCDSS v. Sturkey, et al., Greenville 99-DR-23-258.

T.P.R. (Public Action) (Termination of Parental Rights).

The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application.
S.C. Court of Appeals 4/22/99 - Opinion #99 - affirms."

Judge Jenkins further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) Withdrew after qualified and nominated for Seat #4, SC Court of Appeals-2007; Seat #7 SC Court of Appeals (2007) Qualified, not nominated;

(b) Candidate for Resident Seat #4 Circuit Court of Greenville, Qualified; not recommended - 2004;

(c) Candidate for Judicial Seat #3, Family Court, Greenville County (Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. - January 1992."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Jenkins to be "a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Jenkins is married to Margaret Helen (Rivers) Jenkins. He has two children.
Judge Jenkins reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

(d) South Carolina Black Lawyers Association - member; served as its Treasurer 1976-1980;

(e) Greenville Bar Association."
Judge Jenkins provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

(d) South Carolina Black Lawyers Association - member; served as its Treasurer 1976-1980;

(e) Greenville Bar Association."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Judge Jenkins' extensive public service through his work at Legal Services and his twelve years as a Family Court judge. They noted that Judge Jenkins would bring a diverse legal background to the Court of Appeals. They further noted that he is known as a very hard working and caring judge, which would benefit him on the Court of Appeals.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Jenkins qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

Alison Renee Lee
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lee meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Lee was born in 1958. She is 49 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Lee provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984. Judge Lee was admitted to practice in Texas and Louisiana in 1982 and 1983 respectively. She is on inactive status in those two states.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Lee.
Judge Lee demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Lee reported that she has spent $10.70 for stationery on campaign expenditures.
Judge Lee testified she has not:

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

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

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Lee testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Lee to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Lee described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/21/03;

(b) Criminal Law Update 01/21/03;

(d) Class Actions 10/21/03;

(e) Women Lawyers in the New Millennium 04/11/03;

(f) S.C. Circuit Judges Conference 05/07/03;

(g) S.C. Judicial Conference 08/21/03;

(h) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/23/04;

(i) Annual Civil Law Update 01/23/04;

(j) Matthew J. Perry: The Man, 04/23/04;

(k) S.C. Circuit Judges Conference 05/05/04;

(l) S.C. Judicial Conference 08/19/04;

(m) Annual Civil Law Update 01/21/05;

(n) Annual Criminal law Update 01/21/05;

(o) Circuit Judges Conference 05/11/05;

(p) Annual Judicial Conference 08/24/05;

(q) ABCs of Effective & Ethical Trial Practice 10/14/05;

(r) Annual Civil Law Update 01/28/06;

(s) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/28/06;

(t) Circuit Judges' Conference 05/10/06;

(u) Annual Judicial Conference 08/23/06;

(v) Annual Civil Law Update 01/21/07;

(w) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/21/07;

(x) Circuit Judges' Conference 05/14/07;

(y) Annual Civil Law Update 01/25/08;

(z) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/25/08."
Judge Lee reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) JCLE - Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (August 1985); Topic: Settling the Family Court Record on Appeal;

(b) Basic Federal Court Practice (September 1985); Topic: Pretrial Orders, Sanctions & Local Rules;

(d) Bridge the Gap (May 1996, March 1997, May 1997, March 1998, May 1998); Topic: Practice Tips for the Administrative Law Judge Division;

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

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

(g) South Carolina Woman Advocate: Moving into the Millennium (May 1998);

(h) Tips from the Bench III (December 2002);

(i) Women Lawyers in the New Millennium (April 2003); Topic: Ethics - Circuit Court;

(j) S.C. Black Lawyers Summit & Retreat (October 2004); Topic: S.C. Judiciary on Civility & Ethics (panel discussion);

(k) ABC's of Effective and Ethical Practice (October 2005); Topic: Enhancing Persuasion in Trial: Civil and Criminal Advocacy in S.C. (panel discussion);

(l) South Carolina Black Lawyers Summit & Retreat (September 2006); Topic: Tips from the Bench (Panel discussion);

(m) South Carolina Municipal Association (December 2006); Topic: Ethics - Circuit Court."
Judge Lee reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Lee was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Lee reported that prior to her service on the bench she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Lee appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Lee appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Lee was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a) 1982-83. Law Clerk, Honorable Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals;

(b) 1983-84. Law Clerk, Honorable C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., South Carolina Court of Appeals;

(d) 1989-94. Staff Counsel, S.C. Legislative Council, drafting legislation and amendments for members of the General Assembly in the areas of transportation, crime, corrections and prisons, and education;

(e) 1994-1999. Administrative Law Judge presiding over administrative hearing relating to insurance, environmental permitting, alcoholic beverages, wages, taxes, video poker, bingo, appeals from occupational licensing boards, and hearings on regulations promulgated by certain state agencies;

(f) 1999-present. Circuit Court Judge. Court of general jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters. Appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate, and probate cases."
Judge Lee reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: (1984-1989) 90%;

(b) State: 10%."
Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 80%;

(b) Criminal: 20%;

(c) Domestic: handled 2-3 appointed cases."
Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 10% cases were resolved by motion or through settlement;

(b) Non-jury:"
Judge Lee provided that prior to her service on the bench she most often served as co-counsel.

The following is Judge Lee's account of her four most significant litigated matters:

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

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

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

(d) Valerie Smith v. Kroger, (Federal district court) - either a slander or malicious prosecution case resulting from shoplifting."

The following is Judge Lee's account of four civil appeals she has personally handled:

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

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

(d) Davis v. U.S. Steel Corp., 779 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1985) on brief only."

The following is Judge Lee's account of criminal appeals she has personally handled: "I did not handle any criminal appeals while in private practice. However, as a circuit court judge I have presided over appeals from magistrate and municipal court involving criminal matters."

Judge Lee reported that she has held the following judicial office(s):

"(a) Elected by the General Assembly in February 1994 to the office of Administrative Law Judge which is a quasi-judicial function within the executive branch of government. Jurisdiction is limited to fact finding within the context of administrative hearings involving taxes, licensing, permitting and rate-making. Act as an appellate body in matters involving occupational licensing and foster care licensing, among others. Conduct public hearings and decide the reasonableness and need for regulations promulgated by certain state agencies;

(b) Elected by the General Assembly in February 1999 to Circuit Court. Re-elected in February 2002. Court of general jurisdiction covering civil and criminal matters. Also appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate, and probate cases."

Judge Lee provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) Ward v. South Carolina, 98-CP-40-4069, reversed 538 S.E.2d 245 (S.C. 2000). Ward, a federal retiree, filed suit against the state seeking to have declared unconstitutional statutes enacted providing state retirees a 'rebate' on income taxes in response to Davis v. Michigan. The State filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was granted on the basis that Ward failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Department of Revenue and the Administrative Law Judge Division. The Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that exhaustion of remedies was not required when the sole issue for determination involves the constitutionality of a statute. Neither the Department of Revenue nor the ALJD has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of a statute;

(b) Collins Holding Co. v. Defibaugh, Ct. App. reversed on one issue, 2007 WL 1148140. Collins Holding Co. filed suit seeking damages against a competitor for a variety of claims. The issue was whether the Defendant engaged in unfair trade practices for allowing certain video game machines that employed a 'reflexive payout' feature. A number of other issues were raised by Collins on appeal;

(c) Sloan v. Greenville County, et al., 99-CP-23-4464. Mr. Sloan sued Greenville County seeking to declare its action unlawful in connection with the procured construction of the family Court Building Expansion. The County sought dismissal of the lawsuit claiming Mr. Sloan did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The decision found that Sloan had standing to bring the action against the County as a taxpayer when the legislative acts sought to be enjoined are unlawful;

(d) Jordan, et al v. Holt, et al., 96-CP-26-3792, reversed by Ct. App.; Ct. App. reversed by S. Ct., 362 S.C. 201, 608 S.E.2d 129 (2005). This was a non-jury trial in partners in a failed restaurant venture sought dissolution of the partnership, an accounting of the assets and claims for damages from the operation of the business. The trial lasted one week and involved voluminous documents, checks, records and photographs;

(e) Cooke v. Palmetto Health Alliance, affirmed by Ct. App., 367 S.C. 167, 624 S.E.2d 439 (Ct. App. 2005). Workers' Compensation case in which Mr. Cooke sought to receive benefits under the Act. The legal issue was whether Cooke was a statutory employee."

Judge Lee further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) Candidate for Circuit Court At-Large Seat 10. Election in April 1997, withdrew two days before the election. Seat won by James R. Barber, III. Also candidate for Circuit Court At-Large, Seats 1 and 7. Withdrew candidacy when Commission nominated me as a candidate for Seat 11 in February 1999;

(b) Candidate for Court of Appeals, Seat 1, Seat 3, and Seat 6. Elections occurred in 2003 and 2004. In all cases I was found qualified by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, but I was not nominated."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Lee to be "a most eminently qualified and a most highly regarded candidate who would most ably serve on the Court of Appeals bench."
Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children.
Judge Lee reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) American Bar Association (1985-90);

(b) South Carolina Bar Association;

(d) Richland County Bar Association;

(e) Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education (July 1987-June 1988);

(f) Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances and Discipline (1987-1989);

(g) National Conference of State Trial Judges (2007)."
Judge Lee provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Columbia Chapter of The Links, Inc. (1987 - present);

President 1994-98;

Vice President 1993-94;

Corresponding Secretary 1990-93;

(b) Columbia Chapter, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. (1992 - present);

Parliamentarian 1995-97, 2001-2007;

Chairperson 1995-96;

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

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

(f) Leadership South Carolina, Class of 1999."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Lee is an outstanding candidate who has a great reputation as a circuit court judge. They noted that Judge Lee appears to be studious and has a great concern to ensure justice is delivered in the courtroom. They further noted the Commission commented that Judge Lee is eminently qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Lee qualified and nominated her for election to the Court of Appeals.

Ralph King "Tripp" Anderson III
Court of Appeals, Seat 9

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Anderson was born in 1959. He is 48 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Anderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson 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 Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Anderson described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) 2007 SCAARLA Conference 9/21/07;

(b) Southeastern Health Planning 10/9/07;

(d) Ethics for Government Lawyers 11/9/07;

(e) SCAARLA: Administrative Law Practice 9/22/06;

(f) South Carolina Tort Law Update 10/27/06;

(g) Ethics for Government Lawyer 11/3/06;

(h) Preparing Communities for Public Health Emergencies

3/18/05;

(i) SCAARLA: Administrative Law 9/23/05;

(j) Same Game, New Rules: Ethics 2000 11/15/05;

(k) SCAARLA: Administrative Law 10/1/04;

(l) 14TH Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina 11/19/04;

(m) The CON Contested Case 5/2/03;

(n) Finding Answers in the Administrative Law Jungle

9/9/03;

(o) Court Enforced Secrecy 10/24/03;

(p) Ethics for Government Lawyers 11/7/03."
Judge Anderson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) Southeastern Health Planning - October 9, 2007 - Panel discussion concerning judicial review of healthcare decisions;

(b) S.C. CLE - Does a Difference Make a Difference? - Panel discussion concerning diversity in the law;

(d) Bridge the Gap - Lectured on Administrative Law;

(e) Supreme Court Staff - Lectured on the Ethics Act;

(f) S.C. CLE - 'Ethics Act' - Lectured on the Ethics Act;

(g) S.C. CLE - 'Hiring and Firing' - Lectured on employment law."
Judge Anderson reported that he has published the following:

"(a) 'A Survey on Attributes Considered Important for Presidential Candidates,' Carolina Undergraduate Sociology Symposium, April 17, 1980;

(b) 'An Overview of Practice and Procedure Before the Administrative Law Judge Division,' South Carolina Trial Lawyer, Summer 1996."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson 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 Anderson reported that prior to his service on the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Anderson reported that he has held the following public office:

"Appointed Assistant Attorney General 1985 to January, 1995."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

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

"I began my legal career at the South Carolina Attorney General's Office. During my career at the AG's office I prosecuted numerous criminal cases of all types and handled a wide variety of civil litigation. My duties included:

(a) Statewide criminal prosecutor;

(b) Assisted in the implementation of the Statewide Grand Jury;

(d) Counsel to the State Ethics Commission;

(e) Represented the State in a variety of civil litigation matters;

(f) Represented the State in post conviction relief matters;

(g) Committee Attorney for the State Employee Grievance Committee;

(h) Prosecutor for the Engineering and Land Surveyor's Board."

Judge Anderson further reported:

"I also prosecuted Medical Board cases, wrote Attorney General Opinions and handled Criminal Appeals. On May 25, 1994, I was elected to Administrative Law Judge Seat No. 6 and re-elected in 1996, 2001 and 2006. Administrative Law Judges hear appellate, injunctive and trial cases in a broad range of administrative matters involving governmental agencies and private parties as more fully explained below."
Judge Anderson reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: Infrequently;

(b) State: At least, 20 or more times a year."
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 75%;

(b) Criminal: 25%;

(c) Domestic: 0%."
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 25%;

(b) Non-jury: 75%."
Judge Anderson provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Anderson's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a) State v. Dwight L. Bennett - This was a felony DUI case in which the victim lost the baby she was carrying and suffered horrible injuries. Although the defendant was convicted, this case was used as a legislative example as the need to increase the maximum felony DUI punishment;

(b) Georgia v. Richard Daniel Starrett, aff'd., Richard Daniel Starrett v. William C. Wallace - Starrett was convicted of several crimes in South Carolina. Afterwards, Georgia sought his extradition in an attempt to convict him under the death penalty. Starrett's challenge to the Attorney General's Office authority to hold extradition hearings was denied;

(c) State v. Michael Goings - Goings was a notorious City of Cayce police officer charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature;

(d) State v. Herbert Pearson and Terrance Singleton - The Defendants in this case were accomplices in the armed robbery, attempted murder and murder of attendants at a gas station in Sumter, S.C.;

(e) State v. William Keith Victor - After the Defendant was convicted of murder and kidnapping, he was given the death penalty. His case was later reversed on appeal and the prosecution was assumed by me. The prosecution, under difficult circumstances, resulted in the Defendant's plea to murder and the aggravating circumstance of kidnapping."

The following is Judge Anderson's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) Bergin Moses Mosteller v. James R. Metts, S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided;

(b) Dennis G. Mitchell v. State of S.C., S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided;

(c) Ex Parte, Bobby M. Stichert v. Carroll Heath, S.C. Supreme Court, Decided August 29, 1985 - 286 S.C. 456, 334 S.E. 2d 282;

(d) Patrick C. Lynn, et al. v. State of S.C., Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided;

(e) Paul David Tasker v. M.L. Brown, Jr., S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided."

The following is Judge Anderson's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"I handled several criminal appeals while serving as an Assistant Attorney General. However, my service with the Attorney General's Office ended in February 1995 when I began serving as an Administrative Law Judge. As a result of the passage of time since that date, the briefs and specific case captions are no longer available."

Judge Anderson reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"I was elected by the General Assembly to serve as an Administrative Law Judge, February 1, 1995 and have been serving continuously since that date. Administrative Law Judges hear appellate, injunctive and trial cases in a broad range of administrative matters involving governmental agencies and private parties. The appellate jurisdiction includes appeals involving Medicaid; driver's license revocations and suspensions; licensing decisions from boards/commissions under the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation; Budget and Control Board's Employee Insurance Program; AFDC benefits; operation of day care facilities and foster home licensing; food stamps; and revocations or suspensions of teachers' certificates. The Administrative Law Court also hears appeals from final decisions of the Department of Corrections in 'non-collateral' matters, and appeals from final decisions of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services permanently denying parole eligibility. The contested case litigation includes hearings involving environmental and health permitting; Certificates of Need; State Retirement Systems' disability determinations; Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; state and county tax matters; alcoholic beverage issues; and wage disputes."

Judge Anderson provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 99-ALJ-07-0290-CC;

(b) McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001) (en banc). Holding reviewed in Sullivan v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003);

(c) Paris Mountain Utilities, Inc., et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Docket No. 01-ALJ-07-0462-CC;

(d) Providence Hospital v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and Palmetto Richland Memorial Hospital, Docket No. 02-ALJ-07-0155-CC;

(e) Anonymous Physician v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Medical Examiners, Docket No. 05-ALJ-11-0029-IJ."

Judge Anderson reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"Administrative Law Judge, Seat 3 (February 23, 1994); Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 3 (May 24, 2000) - Found qualified and nominated but withdrew prior to election; Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 9 (January 16, 2003) - Found qualified but not nominated."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Anderson to be "an eminently qualified and most highly regarded candidate, who would most ably serve on the Court of Appeals bench."
Judge Anderson is married to Linda Corley Anderson. He does not have any children.
Judge Anderson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar;

(b) Administration and Regulatory Law Committee of the SC Bar."
Judge Anderson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:

"Shandon Baptist Church, Sunday School teacher."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Anderson is known as a dedicated and a very highly regarded judge on the Administrative Law Court. They noted his keen intellect and his very personable demeanor. They further noted that he is known as a very dedicated and hard working jurist which would serve him well on the Court of Appeals.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Anderson qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Court of Appeals.

J. Mark Hayes, II
Court of Appeals, Seat 9

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hayes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Hayes was born in 1958. He is 49 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Hayes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hayes.
Judge Hayes 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 Hayes reported that he has made $55.10 in campaign expenditures for stationery.
Judge Hayes 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 Hayes 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 Hayes to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Hayes described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) 6th Annual Civil Law Update 01/25/08;

(b) 23rd Criminal Law Update 01/25/08;

(d) 2007 Circuit Judges Conference 5/16/07;

(e) Fifth Annual Civil Law Update 1/26/07;

(f) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update 1/26/07;

(g) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/06;

(h) 20th SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/10/06;

(i) 21st Annual Criminal Law Update 1/27/06;

(j) 4th Annual Civil Law Update 1/27/06;

(k) 2005 Annual Judicial Conference 8/24/05;

(l) 2005 SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/11-13/05;

(m) 20th Annual Criminal Law Update 1/21/05;

(n) Seminar for Chief Judges 12/10/04;

(o) General Jurisdiction 10/11/04;

(p) Judicial Oath of Office 8/19/04;

(q) Judicial Conference 8/19/04;

(r) 2004 SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/5/04;

(s) 2nd Annual Civil Law Update 1/23/04;

(u) Judicial Conference 8/21/03;

(v) 2003 SCTLA Annual Convention 8/7/03;

(w) 2003 Orientation for Judges 7/7/03;

(x) 2003 SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/7/03;

(y) Tips from the Bench III 12/13/02;

(z) Auto Torts XXV 12/6-7/02."
Judge Hayes reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) March 2008: Spartanburg Methodist College, School Law presenter;

(b) November 2007: University of South Carolina Upstate, Criminal Justice Class presenter;

(c) September 2007: Host and presenter for the Wofford College Judicial Symposium on The Constitution: The Third Branch of Government, an Insider's View. Individual Topic: The Judiciary and the Media;

(d) 2006: S.C. Budget and Control Board/Insurance Reserve Fund Law Enforcement Defense Counsel Seminar. Topic: S.C. Lawyer Disciplinary Process/Ethics;

(e) 2005: S.C. Budget and Control Board/Insurance Reserve Fund Law Enforcement Defense Counsel Seminar. Topic: Legislative Update; Med/mal reform legislation;

(f) 2004: Solicitors' Annual Conference, panel discussion on recent judicial decisions;

(g) 2003: S.C. Worker's Compensation Claimant's fall meeting, legal update and panel discussion;

(h) 1999: Instructor through the Lorman Institute on the educational issue of 'Hot Topics in South Carolina School Law', focusing on search and seizure issue in schools and drug testing.
Two additional seminars in which I will be participating during 2008:

(1) June 2008: South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association - Trial Academy - Greenville, SC

(2) September 2008: National Business Institute Seminar - Civil Trials - Judicial Panel - Greenville, SC."

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

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Hayes 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 Hayes reported that prior to his service on the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Hayes reported that he has held the following public offices:

"(a) Commission Member - Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium. Appointed approx. 1994;

(b) Chairman - Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium Commission. 2000 - 2003. Appointed by Spartanburg County Council."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Hayes appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Hayes appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Hayes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

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

"(a) August 1984 to July 1985: Judicial clerk to the Hon. E.C. Burnett, III, then Circuit Court Judge for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the State of South Carolina;

(b) August 1985 to December 1990: Associate with the general practice firm of Burts, Turner, Hammett, Harrison, and Rhodes; after eighteen months, full partner. Duties included general trial work in both civil and criminal matters. Shortly after becoming associated with the firm, specialty area became education-related law;

(c) January 1, 1991: Partner in the firm of Harrison and Hayes. The character of my practice became more focused on education law, appellate practice, and complex civil litigation;

(d) In January 2000: The law firm of Harrison, White, Smith, Hayes & Coggins was formed. Partner until May 2003. My primary focus in the practice was complex civil litigation, complex insurance coverage cases, appellate practice, education law, and assistance with complex criminal litigation;

(e) 1991-2003: Performed appellate work arguing numerous times in South Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals."
Judge Hayes reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: frequent;

(b) State: frequent;"
Judge Hayes reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: approx 85%;

(b) Criminal: approx 10%;

(c) Domestic: approx 5%."
Judge Hayes reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 50%, of which about 5% went jury verdict;

(b) Non-jury: 50%."
Judge Hayes provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel. "However, due to the complexity of many of the cases, our firm assigned two or more lawyers and, as such, I generally served as chief counsel or co-counsel."

The following is Judge Hayes' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a) S.C. School for the Deaf and the Blind v. Altreo Quattlebaum, United States District Court of South Carolina.

This matter was equitable nature. However, the significance of this case is that it arose out of a factual situation that potentially could have exposed children already suffering from handicapping conditions to two students who had demonstrated a potential for violence to themselves and to others. This case filtered from underlying systemic issues in South Carolina as they relate to the management and care of severely mentally impaired children in the State of South Carolina. An order was issued from the Honorable Margaret Seymour, U.S. District Court Judge, in favor on SCSDB, but the order was issued as an unpublished opinion;

(b) Murray v. Broad River Electrical Cooperative, South Carolina State Circuit Court.

This case was significant because it involved a theory of liability against an electric cooperative for failure to inspect the location of electrical transmission lines. The trial of the case demanded a historical review of the practices of an electrical cooperative, the interplay of federal governmental regulations, and common law tort theories. This case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. No appeal was made of the case;

Adams v. Texfi, 330 S.C. 305, 498 S.E.2d 885 (S.C. App. 1998).

Adams v. Texfi, 320 S.C. 213, 464 S.E.2d 109 (1995).

Adams v. Texfi, 314 S.C. 313, 443 S.E.2d 913 (S.C. App. 1994).

Adams v. Texfi lasted almost ten years from the time the original Form 50 was filed with the Worker's Compensation Commission seeking payments for death benefits. The case dealt with a relatively obscure workers' compensation provision that involved showing appropriate dependency for purposes of a step-child to receive workers' compensation death benefits. I argued this case twice before the South Carolina Supreme Court. All four published citations involve this case;

(d) J. Samuel Coakley, Individually and as Trustee of a Special Needs Trust for Christian Coakley v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., Scott Mitchell, et al. 98-CP-42-2287, South Carolina State Circuit Court.

This case was a declaratory judgment action for secondary liability insurance coverage that arose from a one-car accident where a young 16-year-old passenger was left a quadriplegic. Prior to the filing of the insurance coverage case, the negligence action was filed against the at-fault driver and discovery was conducted. After the depositions of the driver were taken, the automobile accident case was resolved but was done so under a release that expressly preserved the secondary liability insurance issues of coverage and stacking of policies. The release also expressly set forth some factual stipulations. Additionally, to resolve the automobile accident, a Special Needs Trust was established as allowed under Medicaid/Medicare guidelines. Subsequently, as part of the secondary insurance coverage case, it was asserted the insurance company attempted to alter the positions taken by it in the prior litigation. A seventeen-page order establishing secondary liability coverage and allowing the stacking of additional policies was prepared and ultimately signed by Judge Durham Cole on March 3, 2003. The Court of Appeals affirmation is located at 363 S.C. 147, 609 S.E.2d 537 (S.C. App. 2005). I assumed the bench prior to the appeal of the case;

(e) Virginia Surratt v. Diversco, Workers' Compensation file #9903593.

This was a workers' compensation case that was tried before the Single Commissioner and reviewed by the Full Commission Panel. While monetarily not a significant case in comparison to some others, this case created an exception to the exception that injuries that occur during travel to and from work are not compensable. The claimant was a poorly educated, minimum-wage janitorial worker. Her employer picked her up from home and took her to work literally one and one-half counties away. She had suffered a back injury as a result of an automobile accident while returning home. She had no health insurance, no money for doctor expenses, and no job. I was able to secure past temporary total benefits, ongoing temporary total benefits, and was able to provide her with medical coverage that included a procedure to attempt to correct her back. Legal significance of this matter pales in comparison to the very real and positive effect this matter had to Ms. Surratt's quality of life."

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

"(a) Justice v. BMG Distributing, Inc., 318 S.C. 359, 458 S.E.2d 35 (1995);

(b) Adams v. Texfi, 330 S.C. 305, 498 S.E.2d 885 (S.C. App. 1998);

(d) Hendrickson v. Spartanburg County School District Five, 307 S.C. 108, 413 S.E.2d 871 (App. 1992);

(e) Corbin v. Kohler Co., 351 S.C.613, 571 S.E.2d 92 (S.C. App. 2002)."

Judge Hayes reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Hayes reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"Elected by the South Carolina General Assembly on April 9, 2003 to fill unexpired term of Gary Clary as South Carolina Circuit Judge At-Large Seat #5. Oath administered on May 22, 2003. State-wide jurisdiction over criminal, civil jury, and civil non-jury matters."

Judge Hayes provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) S.C. Electric & Gas Co. v. Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc. and the S.C. Public Service Commission.

This case involved a review of a decision of the PSC to allow an electrical cooperative the right to provide electricity to a newly constructed school even though only part of the property upon which the school facility was located was within the cooperative's geographic area. Legally, this case required an examination of the role of the PSC in deciding statutory construction and the circuit court's proper role in reviewing a decision made by the PSC. The case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion, S.C. Jud. Dept. - Opinion Number 2005-OP-292;

(b) McSherry v. Spartanburg County Council.

This case involved the Court reviewing a politically charged issue of a $25.00 road maintenance fee adopted by a county council. Legally, the case dealt with a review of the County's procedure used in adopting the fee and the County's compliance with provisions of the Home Rule Act. Even though the Court and the Supreme Court's affirmation were expressly or implicitly critical of the method used by the County at its first reading, the adoption of the fee was upheld as legally sufficient. Interesting note as referenced in the Supreme Court's opinion, the County has since changed its implementation procedures. The Supreme Court's affirmation was issued on February 5, 2007 and can be found in Westlaw at McSherry v. Spartanburg County Council, ___S.E.2d___, 2007 WL415677;

The 17-page order issued in this case came after a non-jury hearing that involved the interpretation and application of deed restrictions to a commercial area developed by the plaintiff in 1992. The defendant sought to use the property to establish a competing business in violation of the plaintiff's deed restrictions. Even though titled as a Summary Judgment Order, the case was factually intensive and the attorneys conducted a full trial on the issues. The order, therefore, reflects both a factual and legal analysis. In an unpublished opinion, No. 2007-UP-053, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order on February 7, 2007;

(d) Smith v. NCCI, Inc. and Liberty Insurance Corp.

This case involved a complex fact pattern where a white-collar employee sought Worker's Compensation benefits for both a back injury and a mental injury due to an injury back accident that occurred doing his job as an auditor for an organization related to the Worker's Compensation industry. Legally, the case required the application of the substantial evidence standard of review and application of S.C. Administrative Procedures Act to the decision made by the full Commission. The significance of the case, outside of the usual fact scenario for a Worker's Compensation case, lies with the mental injury claim. The case presented an extraordinary opportunity to revisit the law as it relates to recovery of benefits for mental injuries and the factual burden which must be met by the person claiming these types of injuries. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order in its opinion located at Smith v. NCCI, Inc., 369 S.C. 236, 631 S.E.2d 268 (S.C. App. 2006);

(e) Turner v. City of Spartanburg, William Barnett, III, et al.

This matter was designated as complex and specially assigned to me. The factual allegations of the case stem from a development project partly undertaken by the City of Spartanburg and private developers. When certain payments to the general contractor failed to be paid, a lis pendens was filed against the City and others for payment. My order dated June 19, 2006 (attached) supplemented my order of February 10, 2005 (also attached). These two orders dismissed, initially, various individual defendants and, subsequently, the City of Spartanburg. The plaintiff had attempted to assert private cause of action against the City based upon S.C. Code section 29-6-250 which pertains to governments' construction projects and bonding requirements. No appellate review of my orders has been conducted but my understanding is that the case is on appeal."

Judge Hayes further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"In the Spring of 2007, I was a candidate for the Supreme Court but was not screened out of committee. In the Fall of 2007, I was qualified and nominated by the Screening Committee for Court of Appeals Seat #6 but was not elected."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Hayes "to be a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Hayes is not married. He does not have any children.
Judge Hayes reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) American Bar Association;

(c) State Trial Judges Division of the American Bar Association; Vice-Chair, Committee on Judicial Independence."
Judge Hayes provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium. Chairman, Board of Commissioners;

(b) Commission on Lawyer Conduct (Grievance Board);

The Commission commented on Judge Hayes' dedicated commitment as a jurist. They noted he is well respected for his temperament and demeanor on the Circuit Court bench. They further noted Judge Hayes's exemplary understanding of the responsibility of the judiciary and his continuing role in projects promoting the legal system, as well as his strong academic background.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Hayes qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

J. Ren� Josey
Court of Appeals, Seat 9

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Josey meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Mr. Josey was born in 1960. He is 48-years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Mr. Josey provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Josey.
Mr. Josey 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. Josey reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Josey 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. Josey 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. Josey to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Josey described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Attorney Development Program 4/26/02;

(b) Preparing the Corporate Witness 4/27/02;

(d) Today's Best Practices in Law 8/14/02;

(e) Federal Practice in the District 9/6/02;

(f) Ethics CLE 3/8/03;

(g) Sexual & Other Forms of Harassment 3/8/03;

(h) Federal Practice in the District 9/5/03;

(i) Ethics CLE 2/29/04;

(j) 3rd Annual Federal Practice in 9/10/04;

(k) Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE 10/22/04;

(l) SEC "Hot Topics" 12/16/04;

(m) Attorney ECF Training 1/7/05;

(n) Section of Litigation Environmental 1/21/05;

(o) Law Office Technology Committee 1/26/06;

(p) Fourth Annual Civil Law Update 1/27/06;

(q) Employment and Labor Law Section 1/27/06;

(r) Environmental and Natural Resources 1/28/06;

(s) Bringing Voice of Client into the Firm 2/24/06;

(t) Changes SC Rules of Prof. Conduct 2/25/06;

(u) Mandatory ADR Training 9/8/06;

(v) Metadata in Electronic Documents 12/13/06;

(w) 6th Federal Practice in the District of SC 08/24/07;

(x) Florence County Bar's Almost Annual Ethics 2/14/07."
Mr. Josey reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) On September 27, 2007, I spoke to a Sentencing Guidelines training course sponsored by the United States Probation Office for private attorneys defending the accused in the federal system. I have spoken at such events on many occasions;

(b) In December 2007, I assembled, coordinated, and moderated a Florence County Bar half-day CLE on ethics. In August 2007, I was the moderator for the S.C. Bar and Federal Bar Association's annual seminar on federal practice. Earlier in the summer of 2007, I spoke to law students at both the Florence federal courthouse and the Perry federal courthouse on federal practice and the mission of the Federal Bar Association;

(c) As United States Attorney, I was regularly asked to speak at the Annual Criminal Law Update held during the South Carolina Bar's Charleston convention (1/26/01, 1/21/00). I also have taught at the South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Convention (August 2000) and the South Carolina Solicitor's Conference. I helped organize and teach an Ethics CLE at Clemson's Homecoming in 1999 (10/2/99) at the Strom Thurmond Center ('Touchdown Ethics from Tigers on Both Sides of the Field');

(d) In addition, I was a regular speaker at Narcotics training classes for law enforcement, Safe Schools training for teachers and law enforcement, and other training sponsored by the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee (LECC) of the United States Department of Justice. I was a speaker at DEA conferences, FBI retreats, and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy;

(e) Since joining Turner Padget in March of 2001, I have been involved with the Attorney Development program for new associates - directing the program through 2006. This initiative is somewhat broader than mere continuing legal education but involves development of all the skills newer lawyers need to acquire to become successful and productive practitioners. This includes time and personnel management training, team-building, and mentoring;

(f) Also within the past five years, I have also spoken on Ethics at the Florence County Bar Association's Annual Ethics CLE (10/26/01), and the Federal Bar Association's CLE in conjunction with the South Carolina Bar (9/6/02). I also spoke on ethics at today's (9/27/07) sentencing guidelines class."
Mr. Josey reported that he has published the following:

"Last spring (May 27, 2007) I had an article published in the Florence Morning News. It was a tribute to a beloved departing high school soccer coach. It was entitled 'Departing soccer coach leaves big cleats to fill.' While I was in law school at the University of South Carolina, I published the following two articles in the South Carolina Law Review:

A. An Analysis of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. -- Are Punitive Damages and Exclusive Federal Regulation Consistent? 36 S.C.L. Rev. 689 (1985).

B. Annual Survey of South Carolina Law (Labor and Employment Section), 36 S.C.L. Rev. 179 (1984).

Employment Discrimination and Title VII: Appropriate Conceptual

Frameworks for Different Claims.

Fetal Vulnerability Plan: Disparate Treatment Absent Intent.

Title VII and The Sexually Offensive Work Environment: A Warranty of Workability.

Wildcat Strikes and Local Union Liability.

The United States Attorney's office published a quarterly newsletter primarily for law enforcement agencies and I contributed articles to that publication."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Josey 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. Josey reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."

Mr. Josey reported that he has held the following public office:

"(a) From May 1996 through February 2001 I served as the United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina. I was appointed by the President and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. Because this was a federal office, I filed federal ethics reports; as I recall, these were all filed in a timely manner and no penalties imposed;

(b) In March of 2001, I was appointed by Florence City Council to serve as a commissioner on the Florence Civic Center Commission - the public body with oversight responsibility for the regional auditorium/arena located in Florence. I still serve on that commission and was elected chairman by my fellow commissioners in July of 2002. Our commissioners do not serve as the chief administrative officer of this facility; like many such public buildings, this function is filled by an independent contractor. See S.C. Code Section 8-13-1110(B)(6)(requiring such chief administrative officer to file Economic Interest Report with State Ethics Commission)."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Josey appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Josey appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Josey was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.

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

"From August of 1985 through August of 1987, I was a law clerk to the Honorable C. Weston Houck, United States District Court Judge for the District of South Carolina.

Following my clerkship, my wife and I chose to remain in our new home of Florence (we are both from Clemson where I fathers both taught at the University). I joined the firm of Rogers & McBratney as an associate.

I worked as an associate with the firm from August of 1987 through March of 1991. I became a partner in the firm in April of 1991 and the firm name was changed to Rogers, McBratney, & Josey. I remained with this firm through December of 1993 when I left to start my own solo practice. Throughout my years of practice with these attorneys, I was engaged in the general practice of law with an emphasis on litigation.

I was in the solo practice of law at 401 W. Cheves Street, Florence, SC, from 1 January 1994 to 17 May 1996. The nature of my practice was very much as it had been before - general litigation matters of many varieties. In addition, I began handling appeals in association with other firms. I enjoyed appellate research and particularly writing.
Florence County was one of the initial pilot counties for a mandatory ADR program and I received the necessary training early in the program's development. I served on the initial Florence County list of mediators who could be appointed. I conducted many mediation sessions in the 1994-1996 period.

While my practice had always had a federal criminal defense component, it was at its peak at this point. My office location was very close to the federal courthouse and I was a frequent choice of the United States Magistrate for appointments since it facilitated timely hearings - particularly before the Federal Public Defender opened a full-time office in Florence.

In February 1996, I was recommended by United States Senator Ernest F. Hollings to be the United States Attorney for South Carolina. Following the vetting process, I was formally nominated by the President.

Pending confirmation by the United States Senate, I was appointed by the United States Attorney General and United States District Court as an interim United States Attorney on 17 May 1996 and I closed my private practice. On the motion of Senator Strom Thurmond, my nomination was forwarded out of the Judiciary committee in weeks and I was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate just before their Memorial Day recess.

My work as United States Attorney was again focused on diverse litigation - both civil and criminal, and both as civil plaintiff and civil defendant. While much of my time and effort was spent leading and managing the office effort as a whole across the district, I intentionally sought opportunities to participate directly in grand jury and courtroom work - both to enhance my leadership with the office and to personally learn from many skilled Assistant United States Attorneys. As United States Attorney, I also personally participated with Assistant United States Attorneys in several important mediation sessions.

During my federal service I also spent considerable time working on communication and coordination with local law enforcement and local prosecutors whom I grew to respect very much. With the growth of electronic communication, I enjoyed reflective writings to my staff on a regular basis.

At the conclusion of my term as United States Attorney, I resigned to aide the transition for the new administration (24 February 2001). I chose to join the law firm of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney working primarily from its Florence office. I began my work with the firm in March of 2001. While I work on the business and commercial litigation team, my practice has again become quite diverse including both criminal and civil matters. The civil matters have included both tort actions and contract actions. I have worked for both plaintiffs and defendants. I have worked on both state criminal matters in several circuits and federal criminal matters. I have renewed my certification as a mediator and served in that capacity on several matters. I serve on both state and federal certified lists of available mediators."
Mr. Josey reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Federal: An average of once a month;

(b) State: An average of twice a month."
Mr. Josey reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Civil: 65%;

(b) Criminal: 30%;

(c) Domestic: 5%."
Mr. Josey reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Jury: 65%;

(b) Non-jury: 35%."
Mr. Josey provided that he most often served "equally as co-counsel, lead counsel and sole counsel over the past five years."

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

"(a) Evans v. Country Squire Mobile Homes, (Appellate No. 89-719).

This involved a breach of warranty in the sale of a mobile home. I represented the purchasers of the mobile home. The case was significant because the jury apparently awarded damages under the Uniform Commercial Code for the intangible elements of emotional distress and mental anguish. The matter was appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and the verdict was affirmed. It also was significant because it was my first solo trial in Circuit Court and it was Judge Kinnon's final trial in Circuit Court before his retirement;

(b) United States v. Theodore McFarlin, (Case No. 4:97-736).

This case is significant because it represented the first successful prosecution of this former Sheriff of Williamsburg County; to me, his conviction symbolized a purification of a corrupt segment or link in the criminal justice chain and thereby helped restore public confidence in the system. I tried this case as United States Attorney with Assistant United States Attorney Scarlett A. Wilson (now 9th Circuit Solicitor). McFarlin was convicted of all counts including drug conspiracy and perjury. McFarlin was ably defended by I.S. Levy Johnson, Esq.;

I represented the defendant, Jennifer Rose, who was charged along with the other occupants of a motor vehicle with violation of the federal narcotics laws. All of the vehicle's occupants were natives of Jamaica.

The case was significant because I was able to convince the District Court to direct a verdict of acquittal for Ms. Rose on the basis that the government had failed to provide sufficient proof that she was aware of the presence of illegal narcotics in the automobile. The matter was tried before the Honorable Henry C. Morgan, United States District Judge (visiting the District of South Carolina);

(d) United States v. James Coury Holmes and Marcus Mandel Ellis, (6:00 107).

This was a multiple armed bank robbery trial in Greenville before United States District Judge Henry Herlong. I tried it with Assistant United States Attorney Jeanne Howard. This case is significant to me primarily because it represents the most fun I have ever had in trial.
The defendants had committed a string of unsolved car thefts followed by masked armed robberies with assault rifles. The victims were most appreciative and cooperative. Local law enforcement had done a good job of finally cracking the case. The FBI had secured a great deal of circumstantial evidence as well as provided several excellent expert witnesses (dye stain chemist and photogrammetry analyst). The trial went well (50 witnesses in 3 days) and resulted in convictions. Appeals were successfully handled by Ms. Howard;

(e) United States v. Bill Prince and Don Prince.

I participated with two other prosecutors in this trial against the Prince brothers for their conspiracy to hire a hit man to assassinate the key trial witness in an earlier criminal matter against brother Bill Prince. The proof against Bill Prince was largely circumstantial and dependent upon the introduction of the entire historical context of Bill Prince's earlier conviction. It was my first trial as a prosecutor. The defendants were ably defended by Jack Swerling, Esq. and Jack Lawson, Esq."

The following is Mr. Josey's account of six civil appeals he has personally handled:

"I have listed six appeals: in five, I alone wrote the brief and in one, I handled the oral argument - both initially and the rehearing en banc.

(a) Trayco, Inc. v. United States, (Case No. 4:89-361) (1991 W.L. 516834 (D.S.C.)).
This was an importer's action in United States District Court to recover a customs penalty assessed on an inaccurate factual basis. This case is significant because it apparently represents the first time an importer has successfully invoked the jurisdiction of a District Court to obtain judicial review of a customs penalty. I represented the importer, Trayco, Inc. This matter was tried before the Honorable C. Weston Houck, United States District Judge, and subsequently heard by both the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (published opinions at 962 F.2d 97(1992)) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (published opinion at 994 F.2d 832 (1993));

(b) Shores v. Pennsylvania Mutual Insurance Company, (Case No. 90-CP 21-1597).

This case involved the interpretation of South Carolina's mandatory automobile insurance law. It is significant because it represents the first time that an appellate court of this state held that the mandatory minimum liability insurance could not be defeated by the failure of an at-fault motorist to give notice to the insurance carrier. I represented Linda Shores as the personal representative of her brother's estate. This matter was tried in the Florence County Court of Common Pleas before the Honorable C. Victor Rawl, Circuit Judge. The matter was subsequently heard by both the South Carolina Court of Appeals (published opinion at Shores v. Weaver, 315 S.C. 347, 433 S.E.2d 913 (1993));

This was a child custody matter. I represented the father, Dr. Charles E. Crosby. The case served as an important demonstration to me of the duration and difficulty of heart-felt custody battles. The case was also significant because the South Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's first decision awarding custody to the mother and ordered a re-trial (unpublished opinion 95-UP-050). The matter was subsequently re-tried after I left to serve as United States Attorney;

(d) Drew v. United States, 217 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2000), vacated en banc and district court affirmed, 231 F. 3d 927 (2000).

I did not write the brief in this matter, but I presented the oral arguments for the United States both before the initial three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently before the entire Court sitting en banc. This has been my only opportunity to present an en banc argument to the court.

The issue involved the ability of a tort claimant to alter their initial theory of the case after having exhausted administrative remedies with a different theory of the case; the District Court's dismissal of the altered claim for lack of exhaustion was reversed by the panel, 2-1, and then affirmed by the Court en banc, 5-5 (ties defer to the trial court).

The closeness of the decision also corresponds to the closeness of the issue itself which made it somewhat difficult to advocate; essentially, the question was: how much claim alteration is too much?;

(e) Myrtle Beach Shrine Club v. Horry Shrine Club, (Case No. 03-CP-26-744)(unpublished Memo Opinion No. 2006-MO-20)(May 8, 2006).

This case represented a most unfortunate dispute between various fraternal organizations. While my representation was unsuccessful in both the trial court and appeal, my clients remained very satisfied with my efforts and I feel the brief was well done;

(f) Gay v. Solicitor Ariail and SLED, (Case No. 06-CP-23-5958)

This is one of my more recent appellate briefs (filed July 31, 2007 with Reply Brief filed October 30, 2007; I have a more recent brief filed December 27, 2007 in another civil matter). It is another case I have handled solo from beginning to end. The case is a declaratory judgment action seeking interpretation/application of the Youthful Offender Act in an expungment setting; it challenges an Attorney General's Opinion interpreting (or mis-interpreting) these statutory provisions. The brief, like my briefs in Shores and Trayco, addresses statutory interpretation and application. "

The following is Mr. Josey's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) United States v. Henry Monroe Rayford, a/k/a Junebug, (District Case No. 4:92-216, Appellate No. 93-5423).

This was a federal criminal prosecution involving a conspiracy to possess drugs with an attempt to distribute as well as allegations of money laundering. The case is significant because the money laundering conviction was reversed (unpublished opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, February 7, 1995) based upon the trial court's erroneous omission of evidence. I represented the defendant Rayford (there were multiple defendants with differing appellate issues, but one composite brief was submitted, I prepared the successful issue);

(b) United States v. Benjamin Harden, et.al., (Appeal Record No. 97-4791).

This was an unsuccessful appeal from the trial court's dismissal of the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. As United States Attorney, I began personal work on this matter following the trial court's dismissal. I prepared the brief with assistance from Assistant United States Attorney Scarlett A. Wilson (now Solicitor) (she signed the final brief) and I argued the matter before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals;

This was a felony DUI matter. It is the only criminal appeal that I recall handling in the State system. I was not trial counsel and the matter arises more in the form of a post-conviction jurisdictional challenge. Because of the unusual procedural position of the matter (post-conviction motion for sentence reconsideration), my appellate brief was never filed in this matter; nevertheless, it was prepared in draft form and has been presented to the Assistant Solicitor. Interestingly, while the Brief is entirely my composition, some of the preliminary research was done by Mr. White in prison and I followed up on his insightful work. As a result of this briefing and negotiations, a new plea agreement was reached, involving the victim, and a reduced sentence imposed. Mr. White is now a success story following his incarceration (employed, continuing his education);

(d) United States of America v. Danny Myers, (No. 4:90-430, Appellate No. 91-5562).

I represented the defendant, Danny Myers, pursuant to an appointment under the Criminal Justice Act. The defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs, possession with intent to distribute illegal drugs, and a firearm violation. After tendering a plea to the firearm count, the defendant stood for trial on the narcotics charges. The case is significant because it represents the first trial of mine in which the defendant was prosecuted with "historical" evidence only. The matter was subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the conviction was affirmed (unpublished opinion). The defendant's petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied;

(e) United States v. Rigney, (Appeal No. 89-5617).

This was a drug conspiracy case and my first criminal trial. I was appointed to represent the defendant William O. Rigney who was a decorated Navy Veteran with no criminal record. There was limited direct physical evidence of his involvement but significant circumstantial evidence and direct testimony of co-conspirators. One of these witnesses made reference to the polygraph during her examination and this became the issue of the subsequent appeal. This was also my first criminal appeal."

Mr. Josey further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) I unsuccessfully ran for Florence County Council in 1994;

(b) In the Fall of 2002, I was a candidate for Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat #9, and was found qualified, but not nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Committee;

(c) In the Fall of 2006, I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat #4, and was found qualified, but not nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Committee;

(d) In the Spring of 2007, I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat #7, and was found qualified and nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Committee. After initial rounds of voting revealed the commitments to other candidates, I dropped out of the race;

(e) In the Fall of 2007, I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals, Seat #6, and was found qualified, but not nominated by the Judicial Merit Screening Committee."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Josey to be "very studious, analytical and very personable and to be qualified for the position he is seeking on the Court of Appeals." As a result of its investigation and previous interviews, the Committee recommended Mr. Josey without reservation.
Mr. Josey is married to Martha Willis Josey. He has two children.
Mr. Josey reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) Federal Bar Association, South Carolina Chapter

President, September 2006 to September 2007

President Elect 9/05 to 9/06

Treasurer 9/04 to 9/05

Board of Directors Member 2001 to present;

(b) Florence Bar Association

President 2007

President-Elect 2006

Secretary 2005

Treasurer 2004

Treasurer 1989-1990;

(d) National Association of Former United States Attorneys;

(e) National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."
Mr. Josey provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Commissioner, Florence Civic Center appointed March 2001, elected Chairperson, July 2002;

(b) Director, Montessori School of Florence, 2001 - May 2007 elected Vice-Chair, 2002, assumed Chair 2005;

(d) Central United Methodist Church, Stewardship Committee 2002, Administrative Board 2003 to 2007, State Conference Delegate 2005 - 2007;

(e) Director, South Carolina Centers for Equal Justice 2002 - 2005;

(f) Director, Florence Center for the Arts, 2002;

(g) Team Manager, Florence Fire Boys Soccer Team 2002 - 2003."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Josey's breadth of legal experience would serve him well on the Court of Appeals. They noted his fairness as a former U.S. Attorney and now as an attorney in private practice, as well as his great intellect. They further noted that Mr. Josey has been selected as one of the Best Lawyers in America for appellate law for the last two years.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Josey to be qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

James E. Lockemy
Court of Appeals, Seat 9

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lockemy meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Lockemy was born in 1949. He is 58 years old and a resident of Dillon, South Carolina. Judge Lockemy 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 1974.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Lockemy.
Judge Lockemy 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 Lockemy reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Lockemy 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 Lockemy 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 Lockemy to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Lockemy described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Annual Judicial Conference 2002-07;

(b) Ethics 2000 1 2/13/05;

(d) Speaker, Several Seminars for the SC Bar and Defense and Trial Lawyers Assoc. 2002-07."
Judge Lockemy reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have been a presenter on several South Carolina Bar CLE programs as well as at Bar Association conferences. I have lectured on military legal education matters dozens of times."
Judge Lockemy further reported that he has published the following:

"'Judging in Kosovo When Duty Calls' was published in the Summer 2006 edition of The Judges' Journal, the official magazine of the Judicial Division of the American Bar Association."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Lockemy 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 Lockemy reported that prior to his election to the bench he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Lockemy reported the following military service:

"(a) United States Army 1974 - 1977

18th Airborne Corps

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Judge Advocate General Corps

Discharged Honorably from active duty December 1977

Rank: Captain

(b) South Carolina Army National Guard

February 1978 - April 2003

Judge Advocate General Corps

Rank: Colonel

April 2003 - March 2004

Multi-National Brigade (East) KFOR 5A

Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo

Rank: Colonel

Honorable Discharge

(d) South Carolina Army National Guard

March 2004 - December 2004

Judge Advocate General Corps

Rank: Colonel

Retired - Honorable Discharge

(e) South Carolina Military Department

Joint Services Detachment

Directorate - Governmental Affairs

Rank: Brigadier General."

Judge Lockemy reported that he has held the following public office:
South Carolina House of Representatives 1982-89.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Lockemy appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Lockemy appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Lockemy was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.

Judge Lockemy further reported the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a) 1974-77, United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps;

(b) 1978-present, South Carolina Army National Guard Judge Advocate General's Corps;

(d) 1978-1979, Minority Counsel, Judiciary Sub-Committee on Antitrust, United States Senate; Legislative Assistant, United States Senator Strom Thurmond, Washington, D.C.;

(e) 1979-89, Partner, Greene, Lockemy and Bailey, Dillon, South Carolina, General Law Practice;

(f) 1989-present, South Carolina Circuit Court Judge;

(g) 2003-04, Chief Legal Officer, Multi-National Brigade (East), United States Army, Kosovo."
Judge Lockemy reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: 10%;

(b) State: 90%."
Judge Lockemy reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 50%;

(b) Criminal: 30%;

(c) Domestic: 20%."
Judge Lockemy reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 65%;

(b) Non-jury: 35%."
Judge Lockemy provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Lockemy's account of his the most significant litigated matters:

"I have handled several important civil and criminal matters throughout my career. These included setting standards for lung disease in South Carolina as well as murder cases in General Sessions Court. I have been unable to get the citations of these cases since they were over twenty years ago."

The following is Judge Lockemy's account of the civil and criminal appeals he has personally handled:

Judge Lockemy reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"I have been an acting Associate Justice on the South Carolina Supreme Court on three occasions: once in 2001 and twice in 2006."

Judge Lockemy provided the following list of his most significant orders:

"(a) State v. Clair (a) E. Luckabaugh, 489 S.E.2d 657, 327 S.C. 495 Aff'd S.C. App. 1997.

An attached copy of the Court of Appeals decision in this case adequately states the facts. Key issues involved the admission of evidence of prior acts, including stories written by the defendant concerning sex with comatose victims at trial under SCRE 401 and 404(b). Another issue was the testimony of a deaf, partially mute witness of a prior bad act who could only speak French or in sign language;

(b) State v. Hinson, 2007.

Defendant charged with kidnapping two teenaged girls, keeping them in a dungeon and raping them. Case tried by the Attorney General. The jury felt that the State had not proven guilt by a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant;

Order and Supreme Court decision is attached. The case involved whether a structured settlement in a malpractice case was altered when the JUA purchased an annuity;

(d) State vs. Patty Syphertt, 2002.

Death penalty case out of Orangeburg County. The defendant was charged with totally duct taping the body of her victim causing him to suffocate to death. The jury found her guilty of murder but recommended life;

(e) Ezell v. State, 548 S.E.2d 852, 345 S.C. 312 Aff'd as modified S.C. 2001 Acting Justice.

This is a case in which I participated as an Acting Associate Justice on the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Court decided that the defendant received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel by not including in his appeal an audio tape of an undercover drug purchase. Sixth Amendment issues were also addressed in the case. The published Order is attached.

I am presently handling one death penalty case as well as a death penalty PCR. Additionally, I have four specially-assigned cases where damages sought are in excess of one million dollars;

(f) State v. Louis Winkler, Indictment #: 2006-GS-26-2101.

I just completed State v. Louis Winkler out of Horry County. It was a capital murder case in which the jury determined the defendant guilty, and pursuant to the recommendation, the defendant was sentenced to death;

(g) I am presently handling one death penalty PCR. Additionally, I have four specially-assigned cases where damages sought are in excess of one million dollars."

Judge Lockemy reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"No, provided, however, that I applied for Court of Appeals Seat #6 in the Fall of 2007 but was not nominated by the Screening Committee."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found that Judge Lockemy impressed the Committee as being "very dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the law and was inspired to offer for this office based on his desire to continue his study of the essence of the law." The Committee found Judge Lockemy to be very qualified for the office.
Judge Lockemy is not married. He has two children.
Judge Lockemy reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) Judge Advocates Association;

(d) South Carolina National Guard Association President, 2005;

(e) Judicial Division, ABA, Editorial Board, The Judges' Journal."
Judge Lockemy provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Dillon Kiwanis Club; President, 1984; Legion of Honor, 2007;

(b) Dillon County Theatre;

(d) Dillon County Veteran's Committee (Veteran of the Year 1999)."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Lockemy is an outstanding Circuit Court judge and has served in that capacity for nineteen years. They noted that Judge Lockemy is known for his willingness to teach students about the court system. They further noted that Judge Lockemy's integrity and continued appetite to learn as a student of history and the law would assist him in ably serving on the Court of Appeals.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Lockemy qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

John M. Milling
Court of Appeals, Seat 9

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Milling meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Milling was born in 1948. He is 59 years old and a resident of Darlington, South Carolina. Judge Milling 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 1973.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Milling.
Judge Milling 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 Milling reported the following campaign expenditures: "I have or will spend approximately Seventy-five ($75.00) dollars in postage for letters sent out announcing my candidacy."
Judge Milling 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 Milling 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 Milling to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Milling described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Attendance at annual Circuit Court

Judges Conferences 2003 - 07;

(b) SCTLA Convention 2003;04;06;07;

(d) Annual Criminal Law Updates at S.C. Bar Convention

2003 - 08;

(e) Annual Civil Law Updates at S.C. Bar Convention

2003 - 08."
Judge Milling reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) Participated in panel presentation of recent Court decisions during the 2000 Annual Conference of the S. C. Solicitor's Association - October 1-4, 2000;

(b) I taught a course at the Florence-Darlington Technical College from August through December, 2006. This was a general law course in the Paralegal Program introducing the students to basic elements of estate matters, property matters, family law, the Constitution, torts, etc."
Judge Milling reported that he has not published any books and/or articles "other than through Law Review, as previously identified."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Judge Milling 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 Milling reported that prior to his service on the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Milling reported the following military service:

"(a) S. C. Army National Guard: December 22, 1969, to December 21, 1976; E5; XXX-XX-XXXX: Honorable Discharge;

(b) U. S. Army Reserve: February 11, 1977, to November 24, 1983: Cpt. XXX-XX-XXXX: Honorable Discharge."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Milling appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Milling appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Milling was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

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

"(a) Greer & Chandler: Associate with A. Lee Chandler and Benny R. Greer in their partnership from 1973 until 1976, when Chief Justice Chandler (Ret.) was elected Circuit Court Judge for the Fourth Judicial Circuit;

(b) Greer & Milling: Partner in this firm from 1976 until 1988 when Judge Greer (Ret.) was elected Family Court Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit;

(c) Milling Law Firm, P.A.: sole practitioner in successor firm to Greer & Milling. Involved with the general practice of law. Chief areas of practice: Personal injury claims, construction claims, Workers' Compensation cases, real estate matters, Probate matters, utility law, issues relating to construction and application of certain legislative enactments, criminal law, corporate law, divorce and family law, and School law;

(d) Part time Assistant Solicitor for Darlington County: Served in this capacity from 1977-1980; served again beginning October 1, 1997, to February 10, 1999;

(e) Part time Assistant Public Defender: 1985 and Part time Chief Public Defender from 1986 to l988 and 1994 to 1997;

(f) Town Attorney: Served as town attorney for Town of Lamar and Town of Society Hill from 1989 until February 10, 1999;

(g) Darlington County School District: served as attorney for the District from July, 1988, until June 30, 1996."
Judge Milling reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: Three (3) cases during that period;

(b) State: civil - three (3) to four (4) cases tried per year during that period; criminal - handling pleas or trials during each term; family court - two or three (3) cases per month."
Judge Milling reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 65%;

(b) Criminal: 20%;

(c) Domestic: 15%."
Judge Milling reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 10%;

(b) Non-jury: 5% - approximately twenty (20%) percent if domestic cases are included."
Judge Milling provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Milling's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a) Stanley v. Darlington County School District, 879 F. Supp. 1341 (D.S.C. 1995); 915 F. Supp. 764 (D.S.C. 1995); 84 F. 3rd 707 (4th Cir. 1996).

Darlington County School District operated under a 1970 School Desegregation Plan approved by the Court in Stanley v. Darlington County School District, et al., 424 F. 2d 195, 196-97 (4th Cir.), rehearing denied, 424 F. 2d 198 (per curiam) cert. denied, 398 U.S. 909, 90 S. Ct. 1690, 26 L. Ed. 2d. 67 (1970). In 1990, the United States moved to intervene. The Court in the action in which I was involved had to address whether or not previously issued Orders that found the School District in compliance were binding on the Court since they were issued without an evidentiary hearing. The Court also had to address issues of whether the School District had standing to sue the State of South Carolina, whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution was a bar to the action against the State, implementation of a Magnet School as a part of the remedy Order, as well as various other issues. In the portion of the case reported in 915 F. Supp. 764 (D.S.C., 1995), the trial court had to consider a revised enrollment process substituted by the School District for the dedicated Magnet School. The State of South Carolina appealed the Order of the trial court and that appeal was principally handled by Mr. Lindseth, whom, I had associated, and who tried the case with me;

(b) Florence-Darlington Commission for Technical Education, a corporate politic, and the Florence-Darlington Technical College, v. William Reeves McCall, William S. Dewitt, Jr., Clark and McCall, Architects, Inc., Rast & Associates, Hoffman, Hoffman & Hoffman, Inc., Peerless Pump Company, and The Masters Company, Inc., 1988 CP16-514.

This was an action originally filed against the architects, engineers and suppliers, alleging negligence by the Defendants in the design, construction, manufacture and installation with respect to renovations to the HVAC system of the Plaintiff. The other issues that were dealt with were breach of express and implied warranties and fraud and fraudulent representations. The contract the Plaintiffs had with the Defendant architects provided for arbitration and, accordingly, the case was submitted to arbitration;

(c) Donald E. Logan v. General Motors, Inc. and King Cadillac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., 90CP21-680 and Nettie C. Logan v. General Motors, Inc. and King Cadillac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., 90CP21-1266.

These were actions brought on behalf of Mr. Logan for injuries alleged to have occurred because of defects in his truck manufactured and sold by the Defendant. This was a one week products liability trial incorporating all of the issues incident to those types of cases to include the liability and damages questions and the experts on both issues;

(d) State v. Donnie Crowley, 95GS16-2026. 95GS16-2027.

The State charged the Defendant with criminal sexual conduct with a minor, first degree, and criminal sexual conduct with a minor, second degree. The alleged victim was the daughter of the Defendant, and, in essence, alleged sexual assaults had been going on since she was approximately three (3) years old. She was approximately seventeen (17) years old at the time she made the allegations and had not been living with the Defendant for some period of time. The Court had to deal with various evidentiary matters, including the scope of the admissibility of statements by the alleged victim to others. In this case, I represented the Defendant as Public Defender;

(e) State v. James Jackson, 96GS13-1156.

This was a murder charge where the death penalty was not sought by the State. The Defendant was a police officer who shot and killed the victim. While the Court had to deal with the general voir dire and evidentiary matters, a key issue was whether or not the Defendant had acted in self defense in firing at the victim. The matter ended in a mistrial and was retried in January, 1999, and the Defendant, the Police Officer, was found not guilty. In this case, I was the prosecutor in both trials."

The following is Judge Milling's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) Bob A. Shirley v. Katherine Sydney Mims Shirley, Heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court; filed August 7, 1990, Opinion No. 90-MO-224;

(b) Ready Mix Concrete Company v. Industrial Paving, Inc., Heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals; Filed December 23, 1992, Opinion No. 92UP179;

(c) Carolina Power & Light Company v. Darlington County, Heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Decided May 6, 1991, 304 S.C.525, 405 SE 2d 823 (1991);

(d) Carolina Power & Light Company v. Darlington County, Heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court; Decided June 1, 1993, 315 SC5, 431 SE2d 580 (1993);

(e) C. R. Cribb and Vacie S. Cribb v. Alexander Paul and Darlington County, Heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals; filed May 14, 1996; Opinion No. 96-UP-144, by Order dated June 21, 1996. The South Carolina Court of Appeals denied the Petition for Rehearing and by Order dated November 8, 1996, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. By order dated April 28, 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Mr. Paul's petition for Writ of Certiorari."

The following is Judge Milling's account of criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"None. Most of criminal cases I handled [were] either as Public Defender or Assistant Solicitor and any Appeals [were] handled by Appellant Defense or the Attorney General's Office."

Judge Milling reported that he has held the following judicial offices:

"(a) Elected Judge, Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 1, on February 10, 1999;

(b) Re-elected Judge, Circuit Court, At-Large, Seat 1, on April 9, 2003. The Circuit Court is the court of general jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters. The Circuit Court also has limited appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Probate Court, Magistrate's Court, and Municipal Court, as well as appeals from the Administrative Law Court and Workers' Compensation Commission for matters occurring before July 2007."

Judge Milling provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) Kim Austin v. John M. Trask, Jr., John M. Trask, III, and Greenway Corporation, d/b/a Carolina Buggy Tours, 1997-CP-07-187;Erik J. Cooper v. John M. Trask, Jr., John M. Trask, III, and Greenway corporation, d/b/a Carolina Buggy Tours, 1997-CP-07-208 and Pamela J. Garcia v. John M. Trask, Jr., John M. Trask, III, and Greenway corporation, d/b/a Carolina Buggy Tours, 1997-CP-07-209;

(b) Elayne Thomas Ann Scott (Brunson) v. John Q. Brunson, Sr., Trustee trust for Robert Ashley Brunson, u/w of Muldrow McCoy Brunson, 1999-CP-43-756;

(d) State v. Roywickus Cade, 1999-GS16-473;

(e) The State v. Jacinto Antonio Bull, 1998 GS16-1492 (Felony DUI), 1998 GS16-1349 (Reckless Homicide), 1998 GS16-1182 (DUS), 1999 GS16-2289 (ABHAN), and 1999 GS16-2290 (ABHAN)."

Judge Milling reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge:

"I taught a course at the Florence-Darlington Technical College from August through December 2006. This was a general law course in the Paralegal Program introducing the students to basic elements of estate matters, property matters, family law, the Constitution, torts, etc."

Judge Milling further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I unsuccessfully ran for Darlington County Council in 1980. I also unsuccessfully ran for Seat Number Six on the Court of Appeals, which election was held on February 6, 2008."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Milling to be "very qualified for the office he is seeking." Judge Milling was interviewed on November 1, 2007 and he gave the committee a "very comfortable feeling about his experience as an attorney and Judge."
Judge Milling is married to Gail Stokes Milling. He has three children.
Judge Milling reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) Darlington County Bar Association;

(c) Circuit Judges Association."
Judge Milling provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Downtown Darlington Revitalization;

(b) Elder, Darlington Presbyterian Church."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Judge Milling's excellent judicial temperament. They noted that he is known as one of the finest Circuit Court judges and that he exhibits great humility. They further noted his good reputation as a jurist who has served on the Circuit Court bench for the past nine years and would transition well to the Court of Appeals.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Milling qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Court of Appeals.

Chace D. Campbell
Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Campbell meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Campbell was born in 1972. He is 36 years old and a resident of Taylors, South Carolina. Mr. Campbell 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 1997. Mr. Campbell has also been a licensed attorney in North Carolina since 1997.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell 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. Campbell reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Campbell 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. Campbell 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. Campbell to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Campbell described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) From Classroom to Courtroom 02/22/2002;

(b) Trial Academy 06/12/2002;

(d) Hot Tips for Best Domestic Law 09/19/2003;

(e) Advanced Cross-Examination 05/15/2004;

(f) Revised Lawyers Oath 09/10/2004;

(g) Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Lawyers 09/24/2004;

(h) Mental Illness and Substance Abuse in Family Law

12/24/2004;

(i) Ethical Considerations in Discovery 04/30/2005;

(j) Probate Court Overview 09/30/2005;

(k) Gain the Edge! Negotiation Strategies 11/04/2005;

(l) Changing Dynamics of Estate Planning 11/09/2005;

(m) Ethics 2000: What You Should Know About Rules

12/18/2005;

(n) Sidebar SC: Family Law Update 2005 12/19/2005;

(o) Speaking to Win: The Art of Effective Speaking

04/28/2006;

(p) Investment Strategies: A Financial Product Primer 09/22/2006;

(q) Substance Abuse (Ethics: Mental Depression) 06/02/2007;

(r) Family Court Mediation 07/19/2007."
Mr. Campbell reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I co-teach Broadcast Law, a graduate level class at Bob Jones University. This is my third time teaching the course."
Mr. Campbell reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Campbell 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. Campbell reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Campbell appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Campbell appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Campbell was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1997.

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

"(a) Culp, Elliott, and Carpenter, P.L.L.C. 1997 - 1999. I practiced primarily tax and corporate law;

(b) Reach and Associates, P.A. 1999 - 2000. The firm specialized in business law with a primary emphasis in non-profit law. For the last six months at Reach and Associates, I worked exclusively with ScanSource in preparing for a complex litigation case;

(c) Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, P.A. 2000 - 2001. At Love Thornton, I primarily practiced medical malpractice defense. At the end of 2001, I was asked to join a group from Love Thornton who started their own firm;

(d) Roe, Cassidy, Coates & Price, P.A. 2002. I continued practicing medical malpractice defense until I left to start my own practice;

(e) Chace Campbell, P.A. 2002 - present. Over the past five years, I have specialized primarily in family law, probate litigation, and business litigation (particularly partnership disputes), three areas of the law that are first cousins to each other."

Mr. Campbell further reported:

"My practice consists primarily of family law. Within family law, I regularly have divorce cases, including equitable division of property. I have both simple asset cases and complex asset cases. I also regularly serve both as counsel and as guardian ad litem in custody and visitation cases. I have only had two juvenile justice actions. I am regularly involved in adoption cases as counsel or as guardian ad litem; in adoption cases, I handle both private adoptions and DSS adoptions. Regarding abuse and neglect cases, I regularly act as defense counsel or as guardian ad litem. In addition, I volunteer as guardian ad litem through the Guardian ad Litem program, and I substitute for the attorney for the Guardian ad Litem program when the regular attorney has a conflict."
Mr. Campbell reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Federal: none;

(b) State: appeared before the court 832 times in the last five years."
Mr. Campbell reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Civil: 33%;

(b) Criminal: 3%;

(c) Domestic: 64%."
Mr. Campbell reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Jury:

(b) Non-jury: I only did bench trials during the past five years."
Mr. Campbell provided that he most often serves as sole counsel.

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

"(a) DSS v. Dale Ferguson. This case lasted two and a half years before the merits trial was finally concluded. The case concerned the allegation of sexual abuse. It was significant because it demonstrated the awesome power of the state in a family's life particularly when the state's case was frivolous. The younger children were ordered to be returned to my client;

(b) Fred and Myra Wood v. Jesse and Dorlee Wood. This case involved a mother who attempted to smother her child. This was a highly contested case. Custody was awarded to my clients, the grandparents. They eventually adopted the child;

(c) In the Estate of Claude Whitner Landreth: Janice Landreth v. Whit Landreth. This was a complicated probate case involving the question of ownership of 512 cars located on the decedent's property. This was a significant case in managing facts and exhibits while attempting to distill the evidence down to a manageable amount. It was also a study in human psychology of why litigants fight so fiercely, which often is more than just the money;

(d) In re Christy Leigh McCall. This case, I represented another attorney who was accused of malpractice in the context of a trust litigation. The case was interesting from the standpoint of why the trust documents were drafted as they were. Managing more than 1,000 pages of exhibits was a challenge that proved to be a great learning experience. The most significant part of the case for me was learning how the process of litigation can affect a client and being a part in helping that client overcome adversity;

(e) Peggy Nelson v. Saint-Gobain. This was one of the first cases I took on after starting my own practice. This was a wrongful death case involving a widow whose husband was killed at his work when a machine he was working on exploded. After months of legal skirmishes, the case was settled. My client was not concerned with the money but with taking care of her family with the passing of her husband. This was a satisfying case and a lesson in fairness and justice."

The following is Mr. Campbell's account of four civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) DSS v. Bruce Miller, July 18, 2005 (SC Ct App);

(b) Woodall v. Williamson, March 14, 2005 (SC Ct App);

(d) Sloan v. SCDOT, June 19, 2003 (SC Ct App)."

Mr. Campbell reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported the following regarding Mr. Campbell: "Constitutional qualifications: Based on the Personal Data Questionnaire, this candidate appears to have all the necessary qualifications. Ethical fitness: The committee has not discovered any information that would lead us to question the ethical fitness of this candidate. Professional and academic ability: The candidate appears to have all the necessary professional and academic ability. Character: The committee has no reason to believe this candidate has any negative character traits. Reputation: The candidate enjoys a favorable reputation in the community and amongst his legal peers. Physical health and mental stability: The candidate appears to be in good physical and mental health. Experience: The candidate has sufficient experience in the Family Court setting. Judicial temperament: This committee found nothing that would indicate this candidate would have any problems in this area."
Mr. Campbell is married to Heidi Denice Campbell. He does not have any children.
Mr. Campbell reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) Greenville Bar Association;

(b) South Carolina Bar;

(c) North Carolina Bar."
Mr. Campbell provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Greenville County Friends of the Library Board, Vice-President;

(b) Community Bible Church, Easley, South Carolina."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Campbell showed great passion for the law and was academically well qualified to serve as a Family Court judge. They noted that he is known for the compassion he demonstrates to his clients and he has diverse experience in the family law area.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Campbell qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Family Court judge.

W. Wallace Culp III
Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Culp meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Culp was born in 1961. He is 46 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Culp 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.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Culp.
Mr. Culp 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. Culp reported that he has made $48.07 in campaign expenditures for photographs.
Mr. Culp 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. Culp 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. Culp to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Culp described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Advanced Real Estate Law in S.C. 03/14/2003;

(b) Auto - TORTS 12/03/2004;

A Study in Perspective for the

(d) Elder Law Attorney 10/22/2004;

(e) Revised Lawyer's Oath 09/10/2004;

(f) Ethics of Charitable Giving 02/06/2004;

(g) Elder Law in S.C. 09/29/2006;

(h) Long Term Care and Medicaid 05/05/2006;

(i) Will Our Past Sustain Us?

Professionalism Issues Ahead 02/27/2007;

(j) Fundamental Probate Procedures

And Practices 07/16/2007;

(k) Training and Attorneys Appointed

In Abuse and Neglect Cases 10/05/2007."
Mr. Culp reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I taught a course on torts to the paralegals at Greenville Technical College in 1993. On both September 27, 1995, January 28, 2000, and November 6, 2007, I was a moderator and speaker at a probate practice seminar. On October 24, 2000, I was a speaker at a child custody seminar."
Mr. Culp reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Culp 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. Culp reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Culp appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Culp appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Culp was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.

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

"(a) 1986 - 1987: Law Clerk for the Honorable Frank P. McGowan, Jr.;

(b) 1987 - 1990: Associate, Rainey, Britton, Gibbes and Clarkson;

(d) 1991 - present: Sole Practice."

Mr. Culp further reported:

"In my first four years of practice, when I was with two different law firms, the general area of practice was in the field of insurance defense. When I opened my own law firm in 1991, I first stated out in general practice. The last sixteen years of practice have mainly been in the areas of probate law, elder law, domestic law and civil litigation. In the last ten years, the emphasis of my practice has grown even more to domestic law and abuse and neglect law. The last ten years I have also done a great deal of work in representing parties in Department of Social Services abuse and neglect cases. I handle some 30-40 of these matters per year. During the last ten years of my practice, I have represented a number of parties in divorce and equitable division of property cases. I have also handled a number of child custody matters, including adoptions. I have served as Guardian ad Litem for minor children in various cases as well. Since completing mediation training, I have mediated several domestic cases involving child custody. Although I have not had any cases in the juvenile justice area, I have observed how the Family Court Judges deal with children in custody and abuse cases. I am a quick learner and would be able to gain quick experience in order to deal with juvenile justice cases."
Mr. Culp reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Federal: None;

(b) State: 2-3 times per week."
Mr. Culp reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Civil: 34%;

(b) Criminal: 1%;

(c) Domestic: 65%."
Mr. Culp reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Jury: 10%;

(b) Non-jury: 90%."
Mr. Culp provided that he most often serves as sole counsel.

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

"(a) Marian Hackney v. the Estate of William N. Hackney, Jr. I successfully defended the Estate against a claim for elective share brought by the Power of Attorney for the surviving widow. The case was significant due to the fact that the elective share, if successful, would have been worth some $500,000.00. The case was also significant due to the fact that I was able to prove that the elective share had been waived even though the original waiver could not be found;

(b) LeBret v. Tipton. I successfully represented foster parents who wanted to adopt two children they had received in a DSS neglect case. The natural parents had essentially completed their treatment plans and vigorously defended the case in a six and one-half day trial. We were successful in getting their parental rights terminated and my clients were able to adopt the two children;

(c) Goldsmith v. Myers. In this case, I successfully represented Mr. Myers in a child custody matter. This significance of this matter was that I was able to convince the Court in South Carolina to dismiss this action due to the fact that it had no jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act;

(d) Ballew v. Cheever. In this case, I represented a group of citizens in Piedmont, South Carolina who were against the granting of an ABC license to a store. I was able to successfully represent them and convince the Administrative Law Judge to deny the ABC license;

(e) First Union v. Robert Benner. In this case I successfully defended Mr. Benner in a claim by First Union Bank. Mr. Benner had stopped payment on his check and First Union had paid the check. I was able to convince the Court that First Union Bank was not a holder in due course and therefore Mr. Benner prevailed."

The following is Mr. Culp's account of three civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) Leroy J. Howard and John Nasser, Appellants, v. JoAnn Nasser, Joey Nasser, Christina Nasser, Ashley Nasser, Leander Nasser, Mary Kaye Barki and Debbie Coggins, Defendants, of Whom JoAnn Nassesr is, Respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals, May 2, 2005, 364 S.C. 279; 613 S.E.2d 64; 2005 S.C. App. LEXIS 125;

(b) DSS v. Tameka Grayson;

Mr. Culp reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Mr. Culp further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I ran as the Republican Candidate for Greenville County Probate Judge in 1998 but was defeated. I also ran for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Family Court Seat No. 3 in 2001, but withdrew from that race."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported the following regarding Mr. Culp: "Constitutional qualifications: Based on the Personal Data Questionnaire, this candidate appears to have all the necessary qualifications. Ethical fitness: The committee has not discovered any information that would lead us to question the ethical fitness of this candidate. Professional and academic ability: The candidate appears to have all the necessary professional and academic ability. Character: The committee has no reason to believe this candidate has any negative character traits. Reputation: The candidate enjoys a favorable reputation in the community and amongst his legal peers. Physical health and mental stability: The candidate appears to be in good physical and mental health. Experience: The candidate has sufficient experience in the Family Court setting. Judicial temperament: The committee believes that this candidate would have an excellent judicial temperament."
Mr. Culp is married to Ellisa Huguley Culp. He has two children.
Mr. Culp reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) Member of the S.C. Bar from 1986 until present;

(b) Member of the Greenville County Bar Association from 1986 until present."
Mr. Culp provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Greenville Rotary Club (Health and Happiness Committee Chairman) 1996-present;

(b) Western S.C. Torch Club (President 1993-1994), 1989 - present;

(d) Eastside Family YMCA Board of Directors 2000 - 2003, 2007 - present. I serve on the Outreach Committee which concentrates on community outreach projects;

(e) First Presbyterian Church Deacon and Stewardship Committee 2001 - 2005."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Culp's experience in representing parties in Department of Social Services' abuse and neglect cases, as well as his experience as a Guardian ad Litem, would be an asset on the Family Court bench. They noted that he is known for his personable demeanor.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Culp qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Family Court judge.

Catherine E. Fairey
Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Fairey meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Fairey was born in 1955. She is 53 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Ms. Fairey 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 1990.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Fairey.
Ms. Fairey 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. Fairey reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Fairey 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. Fairey 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. Fairey to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Fairey described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Greenville Bar Civil and Criminal Law Updates 02/08/08;

(b) Family Law Bench and Bar Updates 01/25/08;

Abuse & Neglect Cases 10/05/07;

(d) Ethical Issues in ADR 02/28/07;

(e) Ethical Considerations & Pitfalls 02/28/07;

(f) Family Law Annual Seminar 01/27/07;

(g) Family Law intensive Workshop 11/02/06;

(h) New Child Support Guidelines 07/19/06;

(i) The Attorney As Supervisor 01/04/06;

(j) American Bar Family Law 09/29/05;

(k) Trial and Appellate Advocacy 01/22/05;

(l) Family Law Section Convention 01/21/05;

(m) Solo and Small Firm Section 01/20/05;

(n) SC Bar CLE Greenville 12/03/04;

(o) Hot Tips from Coolest Domestic 09/24/04;

(p) Revised Lawyer's Oath 09/10/04;

(q) Managing Internet Risks 12/17/03;

(r) Family Court Bench and Bar 12/05/03;

(s) Hot Tips from the Best 09/19/03;

(t) Family Law Part I 01/24/03;

(u) Contracts With Employees 09/24/02;

(v) SC Bench and Bar 07/25/02;

(w) Ethics 01/27/02;

(x) Family Law Taxes I 01/25/02;

(y) Family Law Taxes II 01/25/02."
Ms. Fairey reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"As Chair of the Family Law CounciI, I moderated a family law seminar at the SC Bar Convention in Charleston. I taught a seminar on how to handle temporary hearings in Family Court. I organized and moderated the Intensive Family Law Workshop on child support guidelines and the tax consequences of equitable division. I lectured on handling client difficulties in family law cases at a Richland County Paralegal Seminar."
Ms. Fairey reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Fairey 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. Fairey reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6) Physical Health:
Ms. Fairey appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Ms. Fairey appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Fairey was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1990.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a) From 1990 to 1991, I was a staff attorney with Piedmont Legal Services in Spartanburg, handling a very large caseload of a total cross section of family law issues, including divorces, equitable division of property, alimony, child custody and support, child and spousal abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice;

(b) From 1991 to 1995, I was an associate at Wilkins & Madden in Greenville, working almost entirely with David Wilkins, and preparing high-profile divorces and child custody cases, which would include child and spousal support, and equitable division of property. During this same time, I also handled cases on my own, including DSS appointments as Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or attorney for the GAL for children and adults. This practice with Wilkins & Madden was statewide;

(c) From 1995 to the present, I have been a solo practitioner, handling only family law cases to the exclusion of all other areas of the law. In each year, this practice has primarily been divorces and child custody, with all aspects of those. I also have handled many appointments to DSS cases, and juvenile justice cases on a very limited basis."

Ms. Fairey further reported:

"During my employment at Piedmont Legal Services, I handled, exclusively, all aspects of divorce, child custody, together with child and spousal protection and support. On court days, I would routinely have a dozen or more hearings. I also handled cases involving the removal of children from the home in DSS cases, as well as representing members of families involved in juvenile justice cases.

As an associate with Wilkins & Madden during the early to mid 90's, as well as all of my practice since then, I have handled all aspects of:

DIVORCE including, but not limited to fault and no-fault grounds, contested and uncontested and I litigated the existence and termination of common-law marriages and divorces. I have handled divorces on the grounds of adultery, homosexual acts, habitual drunkenness/drug abuse, physical cruelty, alleged desertion, as well as actions for separate support and maintenance. I have also defended cases on the grounds of reconciliation, condonation and recrimination.

ALIMONY including rehabilitative, lump-sum, permanent periodic and reimbursement on temporary and permanent basis.
I have also handled modification both upward and downward and termination of alimony awards.
I have dealt with cases involving military personnel wage garnishment, post divorce bonuses, intentional underreporting of income and imputed income. I have also dealt with alimony and child support cases which dealt with under utilized assets which were available to produce income for support of a spouse or child. I have handled cases involving the reservation of the right to an award of alimony and security for payment of alimony.

EQUITABLE DIVISION OF ASSETS AND DEBTS AT POVERTY LEVEL AND THE VERY WEALTHY. These cases included expert valuation of property, including equipment, franchises, law and medical practices, real estate, retirement funds, including but not limited to pensions, Keoghs, annuities, IRAs (Roth, Simple, SEP, etc.), 401k's, deferred compensation plans, profit sharing plans, military retirement and pension plans.

I have prepared Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and Qualified Medical Support Orders.

I have litigated cases involving contested issues of transmuted, co-mingled, pre-martial, non-marital and gifted property, special equity interests in property and resulting and constructive trusts.

I have litigated and settled cases involving alimony and equitable division, which naturally included consideration and determination of tax consequences for each party.

I have litigated disputes on the deductibility of attorney's fees and cases involving the recapture rule.

CHILD CUSTODY AND SUPPORT. I routinely litigate and settle custody and support cases and have served as Guardian ad Litem in those kinds of cases. I have settled joint custody, split custody, shared custody and sole custody cases.

I have handled custody cases involving third parties and grandparents, and I have litigated jurisdictional issues regarding custody, including multi-state disputes, involving the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), on standard and emergency occasions.

I have litigated cases involving homosexual parents which required expert testimony. I have defended against cases regarding the relocation of a parent.

I have handled child snatching cases and those involving the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).

I have handled child custody cases, child support cases and modification of child support on a number of bases, as well as interstate support orders. Some of these have included support for children with disabilities and extraordinary medical expenses.

I have worked on cases involving the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Act (URESA), the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) and the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA).

I have handled reimbursement, retroactive and wage garnishment support actions. I have dealt with tax deductions for child-related expenses, child tax credits, dependency exemptions and other tax issues.

I have dealt with court cases involving aid to families with dependent children (ASDC) and social security disability income directed to a child.

I have handled cases involving the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act and support for a dependent, emancipated child.
Some of the support cases have involved the application of a Full Faith and Credit to Child Support Order Act (FFCCSOA) and cases involving college education expenses.

I have litigated unusual situations with uninsured medical and dental expenses, deviation from the Child Support Guidelines and support for an emancipated child in high school.

ADOPTION. I have not handled adoptions as a routine part of my practice as there are many lawyers specializing in that exclusive practice. I am familiar with the adoption laws and I have served as a Guardian ad Litem on a limited number of cases involving adoption and termination of parental rights.

ABUSE, NEGLECT AND JUVENILE JUSTICE. I have handled a limited number of abuse and neglect cases as a compensated attorney. I have handled many child abuse and neglect cases as an attorney appointed by the Court in DSS cases.

My experience in juvenile justice has been limited to appointments in DSS cases when children have been removed from their home. I have monitored and will continue to monitor juvenile justice proceedings in our family courtrooms between now and May 2008. I have also attended seminars on handling juvenile justice, abuse and neglect cases and have studied materials related to these cases.

MISCELLANEOUS. I have handled civil and criminal contempt actions, prepared and litigated the enforceability of prenuptial/antenuptial agreements, including application of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, reconciliation agreements, name changes for adults and children, paternity, annulments and rescission actions.

I have handled cases for clients who needed protection from domestic abuse."
Ms. Fairey reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Federal: None;

(b) State: Almost weekly."
Ms. Fairey reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Civil: None;

(b) Criminal: None;

(c) Domestic: 100%, although a minor percentage of my practice has involved criminal contempt within the domestic arena."
Ms. Fairey reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Jury: None;

(b) Non-jury: 100 %."
Ms. Fairey provided that she most often serves as sole counsel.

The following is Ms. Fairey's account of her most significant litigated matters:

"(a) Jeffrey A. Pyle v. Velda L. Pyle, 98-DR-23-850. There were two separate trials in this case during which I represented the wife on both occasions. During the first trial, wife was awarded permanent periodic alimony. The second trial was brought by the husband seeking to terminate his alimony obligation to wife based upon her alleged cohabitation with another man. Husband prevailed and I appealed the case. At trial and on appeal, I argued a new test for South Carolina, namely, whether the former husband, seeking termination of alimony, could prevail based solely upon wife's cohabitation without showing a substantial change of financial circumstances. The basis of my argument was that since alimony is intended as a substitution for the support a husband provided during marriage and prior to divorce, without a financial gain resulting from the cohabitation, the alimony award should stand. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision;

(b) John J. Sweeney v. Doris M. Sweeney, 2003-DR-23-904. This case involved a divorced, elderly couple and dealt with, as a matter of law, whether the husband could be compelled to sell or deplete minimal assets from his award of half of the marital estate, in this case solely an IRA, in order to continue to pay alimony, when the assets held by both parties were practically identical. The alimony award had been made when husband was earning a significant income and held significant assets. At the time of trial, husband was unemployed, had suffered great losses in the stock market and was supporting himself and a mentally disabled child with the use of his retirement funds. The trial court held that he could be required to continue to pay alimony. I appealed the case and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court's decision;

(c) Michael Steven Riggs v. Crystal Moore and John C. Simmons, 2003-DR-23-0593. This case involved litigated issues on custody, visitation, child support, restraining orders and attorney's and Guardian ad Litem fees. The parties had never been married and both had been engaged in lifestyles which were not in the best interest of the child. However, father had reformed his lifestyle and become a very caring, responsible and supportive father. After several days of trial, my client, the husband, prevailed and continues to raise, as a single parent, a very special, talented young boy;

(d) Suzanne Paradis v. Laura Van Schaick and Edward 'Todd' Eugene Van Schaick III, 2006-DR-23-23. In this case I represented the maternal grandmother of two minor grandchildren, in which she sought custody from her daughter and the children's father. The case was brought on a Notice and Motion for Expedited and Emergency Relief that alleged parental neglect and unfitness of the parents. I prevailed in this case and the custody of the two minor grandchildren was awarded to the grandmother. They continue to reside with her and are doing well;

(e) Richard Jacob Brown, Sr. v. Amanda Brown, 2005-DR-42-1601. In this case, I was retained by the father after DSS took emergency protective custody of the parties' six-month old son from Greenville Memorial Hospital. There were allegations that the mother had harmed the child based upon a video tape in the hospital room. It was later alleged that she was guilty of Munchausen's by Proxy Syndrome. The case was quite interesting and involved a number of professionals, including the treating hospital pediatrician, physicians at Duke University and Spartanburg Regional Hospital. There were psychological and psychiatric, as well as psycho-personality, evaluations conducted. The baby boy had a five-year-old sister and on a temporary basis the baby was placed in foster care and the daughter was placed in the custody of the paternal grandparents. My client, the father, was awarded custody of the children at a second temporary hearing subject to supervised visitation to the mother. The minor children remain in the father's sole custody and see their mother under supervised conditions;

(f) Deborah J. Bucci v. Michael N. Bucci, 2005-DR-23-4165. This case involved divorce, alimony, equitable division of assets and debts, including valuation of four real estate properties, a medical practice, a franchise, investment accounts, retirement and pension accounts, including passive gains on the accounts after filing of action, husband's substantial earnings and wife's earning capacity, attorney's fees and suit costs. The estate in this case was substantial and diversified and required the use of experts for real estate and business evaluations. I represented the wife and argued that although she was well educated, and had at least two master's degrees, her husband's earning capacity was so substantial that no late in life career could support the standard of living she and her son had enjoyed during the course of a long marriage."

The following is Ms. Fairey's account of four civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a) Jeffrey A. Pyle v. Velda L. Pyle, 98 DR 23-850, 2000 UP 462 (Ct. App. 2000);

(b) John J. Sweeney v. Doris M. Sweeney, 2003 DR 23-904, 2006 UP166 (Ct. App. 2006);

(d) One other with the Wilkins Law Firm, not reported, and case citation unavailable."

Ms. Fairey reported that she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported the following regarding Ms. Fairey: "Constitutional qualifications: Based on the Personal Data Questionnaire, this candidate appears to have all the necessary qualifications. Ethical fitness: The committee has not discovered any information that would lead us to question the ethical fitness of this candidate. Professional and academic ability: The candidate appears to have all the necessary professional and academic ability. Character: The committee has no reason to believe this candidate has any negative character traits. Reputation: The candidate enjoys a favorable reputation in the community and amongst her legal peers. Physical health and mental stability: The candidate appears to be in good physical and mental health. Experience: The candidate has extensive experience (18 years) in practicing in Family Court. She does not have significant experience in juvenile matters. Judicial temperament: The committee believes that this candidate would have an excellent judicial temperament."
Ms. Fairey is married to O. Doyle Martin. She has no children.
Ms. Fairey reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar - Family Law Section Delegate;

(b) Family Law Council, SC Bar, Chair And Member;

(d) American Bar Association - Family Law Section;

(e) Certified Mediator, Member Of South Carolina ADR;

(f) South Carolina Women Lawyer's Association."
Ms. Fairey provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Board Member - Carolina Youth Symphony;

(b) Board Member - Langston Charter School."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Ms. Fairey exhibited great demeanor and a patient temperament which would serve her well on the Family Court bench. They noted her active involvement with Family Court matters on the state and national level.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Ms. Fairey qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Family Court judge.

Alex Kinlaw, Jr.
Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Kinlaw meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Kinlaw was born in 1952. He is 55 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Kinlaw provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Kinlaw.
Mr. Kinlaw 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. Kinlaw reported that he has spent a total of $167.70 in campaign expenditures as follows: "Kinkos $98.00 and Postage $69.70 for a total of $167.70."
Mr. Kinlaw 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. Kinlaw 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. Kinlaw to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Kinlaw described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) SCTLA Auto Torts 12-06-03;

(b) SCBLA Annual Summit & Retreat 10-21-04;

SCTLA Auto Torts 12-04-04;

(d) SCBLA Retreat 09-28-06;

SCTLA Auto Torts 12-01-06;

(e) S. C. Bar Management of Lawyer Trust Accounts 11-20-07;

S. C. Bar Ethics & Non-Lawyer Employees 11-20-07;

S. C. Bar SC Trust Accounting 11-19-07."
Mr. Kinlaw reported that he has taught the following law-related course:

"2006 - I gave a seminar on custody in the family court at the South Carolina Black Lawyers Retreat."
Mr. Kinlaw reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Kinlaw 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. Kinlaw reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Kinlaw appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Kinlaw appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Kinlaw was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978.

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

"(a) 1978-1980 - I was employed as a staff attorney with the Legal Services Agency in Greenville County;

(b) 1980-1981 - I was employed with the Public Defender's Office in Greenville County;

Mr. Kinlaw further reported:

"When I was employed with the Legal Services Agency I handled a number of cases in the Family Court which ranged from representation of abused spouses to custody matters. Further, during my tenure with the Public Defender's Office, I represented a significant amount of juveniles in the Family Court who were charged with offenses ranging from truancy to serious felony related offenses. After going into private practice, I have handled over 10,000 family court related matters which included adoptions, divorces and cases involving equitable apportionment of property. Lastly, I also spoke at a CLE credited retreat on the different types of custody rulings that a judge could impose."
Mr. Kinlaw reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Federal: 10%;

(b) State: 90%."
Mr. Kinlaw reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Civil: 10 %;

(b) Criminal: 15%;

(c) Domestic: 75 %."
Mr. Kinlaw reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Jury: Twenty-five percent of my practice involved matters that went to a jury;

(b) Non-jury: Fifteen percent of my practice involved non-jury matters."
Mr. Kinlaw provided that he most often serves as sole counsel.

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

"(a) I was lead counsel in the first capital case that permitted a jury to be chosen from another county and be transported to the county where the case was to be tried. This was pursuant to a change of venue motion;

(b) I was involved in an adoption case where the issue was whether the adopting parents could change their mind after a hearing was held, but the Judge had not yet signed the order of adoption;

(c) I was also involved in a family court matter that involved what was considered a domestic support obligation as defined by the Bankruptcy Court;

(d) I litigated an issue in Family Court regarding whether a person's voluntary termination of employment affected his current obligation of support;

(e) Lastly, I handled several matters in Magistrate Court regarding a landlord's duty to repair."

Mr. Kinlaw reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported the following regarding Mr. Kinlaw: "Constitutional qualifications: Based on the Personal Data Questionnaire, this candidate appears to have all the necessary qualifications. Ethical fitness: The committee has not discovered any information that would lead us to question the ethical fitness of this candidate. Professional and academic ability: The candidate appears to have all the necessary professional and academic ability. Character: The committee has no reason to believe this candidate has any negative character traits. Reputation: The candidate enjoys a favorable reputation in the community and amongst his legal peers. Physical health and mental stability: The candidate appears to be in good physical and mental health. Experience: This candidate has been practicing for 30 years. He has vast experience in every area that is within the Family Court's jurisdiction. Judicial temperament: The committee believes that this candidate would have an excellent judicial temperament."
Mr. Kinlaw is married to Yvette Wiggins Kinlaw. He has two children.
Mr. Kinlaw reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) National Bar Association;

(c) South Carolina Black Lawyers Association."
Mr. Kinlaw provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Urban League of the Upstate;

(b) Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity;

(d) Greenville Mental Health Board."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Kinlaw is known for his good temperament and has impressive experience in the family law area where he has practiced for thirty years. They noted that he proposed the successful concept in the Greenville Family Court for reducing the amount of time dedicated to the docket for handling uncontested hearings.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Kinlaw qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court.

W. Marsh Robertson
Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Robertson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Robertson was born in 1963. He is 44 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Robertson 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.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Robertson.
Mr. Robertson 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. Robertson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Robertson 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. Robertson 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. Robertson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Robertson described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Lawyer Communications as Officers of the Court and

Drug Testing for Family Court Cases 02/26/08;

(b) SC Family Court Bench/Bar 12/07/07;

(d) Attorneys Ethics in Negotiations 02/21/07;

(e) Sidebar: Family Law Case Update 01/19/07;

(f) Criminal and Civil Law Updates 12/19/06;

(g) SC Family Court Bench/Bar 12/08/06;

(h) Ethical Dilemmas for Advocates and Neutrals in

ADR 12/27/05;

(i) Nuts & Bolts of Permanency Planning Hearings and

Termination of Parental Rights 12/27/05;

(j) SC Family Court Bench/Bar 12/02/05;

(k) Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Practitioners 09/23/05;

(l) SC Family Court Bench/Bar 12/03/04;

(m) Ethical Considerations & Pitfalls for the

Family Court Lawyer 12/01/04;

(n) Hot Tips from the Coolest Family Law Practitioners

09/24/04;

(o) Revised Lawyer Oath 09/10/04;

(p) Litigation Technology Roadshow 12/10/03;

(q) SC Family Court Bench/Bar 12/05/03."
Mr. Robertson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) Lecturer, Domestic Practice, Hot Tips from the Experts, 1995, 'Pentente Lite (Bifurcated) Divorces: Obtaining a Divorce Before the Final Order is Issued';

(b) Lecturer, Domestic Practice, Hot Tips from the Experts, 1996, 'Issues and Strategies surrounding the 270-Day 'Case-Striking' Rule';

(c) Lecturer, Domestic Practice, Hot Tips from the Experts, 1998, 'The Alimony Payor's Right to Retire.' Note: Some ten years later, I continue to receive several requests each year from lawyers across the state for a copy of the written materials from this presentation."
Mr. Robertson reported the following regarding publication of books and articles:

"I have not published any books or articles. I did, however, serve on the Editorial Board for the following two books written by Roy T. Stuckey: Marital Litigation in South Carolina: Substantive Law, 3rd Ed. (SC Bar - CLE Division 2001) and Marriage and Divorce Law in South Carolina: A Layperson's Guide (SC Bar - CLE Division 2001)."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Robertson 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. Robertson reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Robertson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Robertson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Robertson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988.

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

"(a) 1988 through 1990: Lewis, Lide, Bruce, and Potts, Columbia, SC. I was an associate in this law firm and practiced in a wide array of areas but with an emphasis on real estate law;

(b) 1990 through 1995: Robertson and Robertson, PA, Greenville, SC. - I practiced for this five-year stretch in a two-attorney partnership with my father, W.F. Robertson III. Our firm practiced exclusively in the area of family law;

(c) 1996 through 2008: Since the retirement of my father, I have continued practicing exclusively in the area of family law, either in sole practice or in the following two-attorney partnerships: Robertson & Quattlebaum, LLC; Robertson and Coleman, LLC; and currently, Robertson & Hodges, LLC."

Mr. Robertson further reported:

"Equitable Division of Property: Over my 17 years of exclusive family law practice, I have personally handled an estimated 1500 domestic relations cases. Of that amount, a high percentage has involved issues of equitable division. I have represented a wide range of clients, ranging from impoverished individuals with little or no net worth to multimillionaires with extremely complex marital estates. I have handled many cases in which I have been required work hand-in-hand with experts in the areas of taxation and business valuation, as well appraisers of a variety of property classifications including both real and personal property. I have questioned such experts in trial on both direct and cross-examination. I have drafted nearly every imaginable type of legal document involving equitable division, including motions, affidavits, pleadings, discovery documents, orders, memorandums of law, qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO's), and appellate briefs. In addition, as a prerequisite to my induction as a Fellow in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, I was require to pass rigorous national and state examinations on the more complex aspects of equitable division, including sections on business valuation, defined contribution and defined benefit retirement plans, QDRO's, ERISA, federal taxation, and bankruptcy.

Child Custody: I have handled a substantial number of contested child custody cases, many of which have proceeded to lengthy and hard-fought trials on the merits. I have successfully represented many mothers and many fathers in these cases, as well as grandparents and other interested parties. I have handled cases involving relocation issues, interstate custody disputes, and cases with international custody concerns. I have served in the capacity as guardian ad litem for minor children, and have acted as mediator in dozens of contested custody/visitation cases. Through my role in these cases, I have gained vast expertise in this state's statutory and case law touching on all areas of child custody, as well as related matters of visitation, paternity, parental rights termination, child removal, modification, and child support. I have likewise achieved expertise in evidentiary, procedural, and jurisdictional matters relevant to child custody and placement disputes. Additionally, the comprehensive exams I passed in the application process for fellowship into the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers included sections on the most technical and complex areas of child custody law, including the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), and the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

Abuse and Neglect: Although my experience in this area is more limited than in other areas of family practice, I have handled a number of abuse and neglect cases over the years, primarily through SCACR Rule 608 appointments. I have represented the parents of children for whom removal is sought, and have also served as the Guradian ad Litem for abused or neglected children.

Juvenile Justice: My involvement in these cases has been rare. However, given my widespread experience in other children's issues in family court, as well as my willingness and proven ability to learn new subject matter, I am quite confident that I can bring myself completely up to speed in this area of law before assuming the bench."
Mr. Robertson reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Federal: None;

(b) State: Frequent, although my court appearances in the three most recent years have been somewhat fewer than in previous years owing to my recent concentration in family law mediation and other non-litigation activities."
Mr. Robertson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Civil: 0%;

(b) Criminal: 0%;

(c) Domestic: 100%."
Mr. Robertson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Jury: 0%;

(b) Non-jury: 100%."
Mr. Robertson provided that he most often serves as sole counsel.

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

"(a) William Christopher Miller v. Janet Lynn Miller, 99-DR-23-4733. This change of custody action was prompted by a custodial parent's relocation. I successfully represented the Plaintiff/father of two children, ages 7 and 4. Only a few months before filing, the parties had settled the contested issue of child custody as part of their overall divorce agreement. The father had agreed to concede primary placement of the children to the mother under the condition that he would receive an extraordinarily liberal visitation schedule. One day after the divorce, the mother accepted a marriage proposal to a man she had just recently met over the internet. The two married a month later and almost immediately relocated from Greenville to McClellanville, more than 250 miles away. We filed for change of custody. Following a three day trial featuring multitudes of exhibits and witness testimony, the court granted my client full custody of the children. The judge made this decision notwithstanding a recommendation to the contrary by the Guardian ad litem. The significant elements of this decision were: (i) the impact in child custody determinations of poor judgment by a custodial; (ii) the importance of environmental factors in child custody determinations; and (iii) the subordinate role of guardian ad litem recommendations in child custody determinations;

(b) Jack W. Ringler v. Roberta D. Ringler, 98-DR-23-2362. This Greenville County case is significant for many reasons, not the least of which goes to its longevity and convolutedness. I represented the husband beginning in 1996. Both parties were retired at the time of filing. The case was ultimately filed in 1998, and the primary contested issues were divorce (my client alleged adultery by wife), alimony, and equitable division of a marital estate that included real and personal property and retirement benefits already in pay status. After a lengthy trial in 1999, a final order was issued in early 2000. The Court granted a divorce on no-fault grounds, denied the wife's alimony request, and divided the marital estate equally. Post-trial motions for consideration quickly followed. Wife then appealed. That appeal would involve approximately two dozen appellate motions, petitions, and returns, along with corresponding orders. Ultimately, my client and I were successful in having the appeal dismissed with an award of attorney's fees, but not until nearly six years had elapsed from the date my involvement in the case had begun;

(c) Julie S. Burch v. Gary L. Anderson, 97-DR-42-3322. This was a contested child custody case in Spartanburg County. I represented the Plaintiff/Mother, who initiated the action seeking only an order of child support. The father counterclaimed for custody based primarily on various accusations of unfitness on the part of the mother, including allegations of drug addiction and educational neglect. After a two-day trial, the presiding judge awarded my client primary placement of the child notwithstanding a recommendation by the Guardian ad litem that custody be awarded to the father. This case provides a good example of these principals: (i) the 'primary caretaker' standard remains an important factor in child custody determinations, particularly where a previously uninvolved father decides to seek custody only after being served with a complaint seeking child support; (ii) a child's need for stability and consistency may outweigh allegations of parental misconduct (i.e., drug use) that occurred several years before the custody action was filed; and (iii) while a guardian ad litem is a useful tool in a contested custody case, the guardian's recommendation is to aid, not direct the Court, and the ultimate custody decision lies with the trial judge;

(d) Claude Ingild Theisen v. Susan Rose Theisen, 99-DR-23-2818. This was an extremely involved domestic relations case featuring extremely high net worth parties and the involvement of a virtual 'who's who' of the top family court attorneys and experts in the state. I have chosen to include this case even though it was ultimately settled prior to a merits trial, simply because this case involved a magnified view of nearly every imaginable issue that family courts deal with in private litigation: fault-based divorce allegations, alcoholism and other 'marital misconduct', contested child custody, contested visitation, contested child support beyond guidelines limitations, contested alimony, equitable division of marital property (including substantial closely held business interests, retirement benefits, financial accounts, and real estate), transmutation, insurance matters, and attorney's fees. I was lead counsel for the Wife/Defendant. After many months of intense litigation that included countless motions, rules, interlocutory orders, depositions, written discovery and expert analysis, the case was settled at the conclusion of two full days of mediation;

(e) Patsie C. Walker v. Kenneth C. Walker, 94-DR-04-138: Following an Anderson County Family court order granting my client, the plaintiff/wife, a divorce, alimony, and an award of 50% of the net marital estate, the husband appealed. I represented the wife on appeal. The case was remanded back to the trial court, where ultimately the original order was upheld subject to a slight alimony reduction. The appellate opinion was unpublished, but the case was significant on the following points of law: (i) An award of alimony is appropriate where a 15-year marriage is destroyed by a husband's adulterous affair; (ii) husband's effort to bar wife from alimony based on allegation of adultery will fail where the evidence of infidelity is not clear and convincing; and (iii) an award of 50% if the marital estate is proper notwithstanding the fact that the alimony was based on part on the discrepancy in the parties' actual incomes and earning capacities."

The following is Mr. Robertson's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) Kenneth C. Walker, Appellant v. Patsie C. Walker, Respondent [see answer above].

(b) Roberta D. Ringler, Appellant v. Jack W. Ringler, Respondent [see answer above]."

Mr. Robertson reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported the following regarding Mr. Robertson: "Constitutional qualifications: Based on the Personal Data Questionnaire, this candidate appears to have all the necessary qualifications. Ethical fitness: The committee has not discovered any information that would lead us to question the ethical fitness of this candidate. Professional and academic ability: The interview with this candidate revealed that he a member of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys. This credential alone is impressive. However, the committee believes it is especially telling of his professional and academic abilities. Character: The committee has no reason to believe this candidate has any negative character traits. Reputation: The candidate enjoys a favorable reputation in the community and amongst his legal peers. Physical health and mental stability: The candidate appears to be in good physical and mental health. Experience: This candidate has practiced 100% family law for 18 years. He is a member of the America Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, which evidences his experience and commitment to family law. Judicial temperament: The committee believes that this candidate would have an excellent judicial temperament."
Mr. Robertson is married to Barbara Kessenich Robertson. He has three children.
Mr. Robertson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) Greenville County Bar Association;

(b) South Carolina Bar (Family Law Section);

(c) American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers."
Mr. Robertson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Christ Episcopal Church (Youth basketball coach);

(b) Greenville Little League (Youth baseball coach);

(d) Poinsett Club."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Robertson has an exceptional reputation in his community as a matrimonial lawyer which is evidenced by his membership in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. They noted that his keen intellect as demonstrated by his performance on the Commission's Practice and Procedure test would be an asset on the Family Court.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Robertson qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court.

Michael Don Stokes
Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

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

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

Mr. Stokes was born in 1966. He is 42 years old and a resident of Greer, South Carolina. Mr. Stokes 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. Stokes.

Mr. Stokes 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. Stokes reported that he has made $972.00 campaign expenditures for postage, printing and a reception for attorneys.

Mr. Stokes 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;

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

Mr. Stokes described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) STOP Violence Against Women 4/1/02;

(b) Magistrate Mandatory School 10/18/02;

(d) Seminar on Civil Law 7/22/03;

(e) The Probate Process... 8/22/03;

(f) SCSCJA Convention/Seminar 9/4/03;

(g) Magistrate Mandatory School 10/31/03;

(h) Family Law in SC 12/15/03;

(i) Judicial Oath of Office 11/19/04;

(j) Magistrate Mandatory School 11/19/04;

(k) SCSCJA Legislative Reception and Seminar 3/9/05;

(l) Family Court Judges Seminar 12/2/05;

(m) Magistrate Mandatory School 11/03/06;

(n) SCSCJA Staff Judges Seminar 2/14/07;

(o) SCSCJA Legislative Reception and Seminar 3/7/07;

(p) Advanced Studies Seminar 5/14-15/07;

(q) SCSCJA Summer Seminar 7/2007;

(r) Domestic Abuse Seminar 10/2007."

Mr. Stokes reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.

Mr. Stokes reported that he has published the following books or articles.

"(a) Comment, Logical Relationship Test for Computing Counterclaims Adopted, South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 42, number 1, pp. 188-191 (Autumn 1990);

(b) Comment, Volunteers Ineligible for Workers' Compensation: Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Compensation Agreements Unsettled, South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 42, number 1, pp. 273-275 (Autumn 1990)."
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Mr. Stokes 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. Stokes reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6) Physical Health:

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

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

Mr. Stokes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.

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

"(a) 1991-1996, Associate, Chapman, Harter, & Groves, PA. General practice focusing primarily on family law, real estate, insurance defense, and workers' compensation appeals;

(b) 1996-2000, Sole practitioner, Greenville, South Carolina. General practice focusing primarily on family law, and real estate;

(d) 2001-2005, Sole practitioner, Greer, South Carolina. General practice focusing primarily on family law, real estate, criminal, and probate;

(e) 2005-present, Partner, Stokes & Southerlin, PA. General practice focusing primarily on family law, real estate, criminal and probate;

(f) 1996-present, Greenville County Magistrate Judge. Appointment originally was for 20 hours per week. Since 2004 my assignment is for 35 hours per week."

Mr. Stokes further reported:

"I have maintained a practice in Family Court for the entire time I have been an attorney. Most of my cases have involved divorce and property distribution along with child custody. As with most good practitioners, I have settled approximately 95% of my cases. I attribute this to being able to explain the law that applies well to the client, so that settlement can be realistically pursued for the client. The law in these areas is really quite settled and a good practitioner should be able to predict with reasonable accuracy what decision a court might render. Also, settlements have been facilitated in Greenville because this county has mandatory mediation and I have always insisted on a capable mediator in my cases. If a case does not settle at mediation, then by that stage I am prepared to try the case.
In the adoption area, my office has not actively sought cases, however, I have done them for established clients. I have undertaken private adoptions, step-parent adoptions, and DSS adoptions.

Most of my abuse and neglect cases have been DSS related. Our office has the policy that we actually handle the DSS cases assigned to us and rarely hire another attorney to take our place. Therefore, over the years, I have had exposure to multiple cases involving abuse, neglect and termination of parental rights. As a private attorney, I have been involved in several private actions involving termination of parental rights.
I have never had the opportunity to handle a juvenile case. However, I have learned the procedure in preparing for this race, I have litigated several criminal matters, and as a magistrate I have heard hundreds of criminal matters so I feel comfortable with the underlying criminal law and feel that I am competent to apply the process in a juvenile case in Family Court."

Mr. Stokes reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Federal: 0;

(b) State: Attorney, 3-6 per month average; Magistrate, daily."

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

"(a) Civil: 45%;

(b) Criminal: 10%;

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

"(a) Jury: 5%;

(b) Non-jury: 95%."

Mr. Stokes provided that he most often serves as sole counsel.

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

"(a) Knight v. Knight. Family Court case involving a long term marriage, significant real property in two separate states and a small business;

(b) Bishop v. Bishop. Family Court case involving a long term marriage, significant debt, a bankruptcy issue, and several contempt proceedings;

(d) Wade v. Wade. Family Court case involving allegations of abuse and property issues;

(e) EmTec eviction. Case heard as Magistrate Judge involving the eviction of an entire manufacturing plant located in Travelers Rest. Involved multiple parties and the amount in controversy was well into the six-figure range."

The following is Mr. Stokes' account of a civil appeal he has personally handled:

"Mullinax v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 318 S.C. 431, 458 S.E.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1995)."

Mr. Stokes reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Mr. Stokes reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"I was appointed a Greenville County Magistrate Judge in November 1996 and continue to serve. The criminal jurisdiction is offenses not exceeding a fine of $500 (plus assessments) or 30 days imprisonment, or both. The civil jurisdiction is matters where the amount in controversy does not exceed $7500. Unlimited jurisdiction in landlord/tenant matters."

Mr. Stokes provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) EmTec eviction. Case involved the eviction of a manufacturing plant in Travelers Rest, South Carolina. Case involved multiple parties and the amount in controversy was well into the six-figure range;

(b) I handled the criminal case as a magistrate when a fire escaped and burned a portion of Paris Mountain. The case is significant in that I had to handle the media attention given to the case;

(c) Most civil cases are without significance on their own. However, they are significant as a group here because of the shear volume of cases I have been called on to decide which is now well exceeding one thousand;

(d) Most criminal cases standing alone are without significance at my current level of court. However, the volume of cases I have decided is significant with a conservative number exceeding 700. This does not include preliminary hearing decisions involving murder and all matter of lesser offenses;

(e) I believe the most significant fact of my time on the Magistrate bench is that I believe I have been appealed no more than 5 times in almost 12 years."

Mr. Stokes reported the following regarding his employment while serving as a judge: "I continued my practice of law while a continuing part-time judge from 1996 to the present at the firms listed above. I have always been my own supervisor."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported the following regarding Mr. Stokes: "Constitutional qualifications: Based on the Personal Data Questionnaire, this candidate appears to have all the necessary qualifications. Ethical fitness: The committee has not discovered any information that would lead us to question the ethical fitness of this candidate. Professional and academic ability: The candidate possesses the professional and academic ability to qualify for the position he seeks. Character: The committee has no reason to believe this candidate has any serious negative character traits, with the exception of having a short temper as described below. Reputation: This candidate has a reputation that concerns the committee. The areas of concern are regarding Judicial Temperament and are more detailed below. Physical health and mental stability: The candidate appears to be in good physical and mental health. Experience: The candidate has sufficient experience in the Family Court setting. Judicial temperament: This candidate is a sitting magistrate and based on comments from several people, who have observed his conduct, this committee has serious concerns about his judicial temperament."

In his public hearing, Mr. Stokes responded to the questioning of his judicial temperament. He stated that he is unsure why the Committee raised those concerns, as it is his practice to be fair and kind to all litigants and opposing attorneys.

Mr. Stokes is married to Rachel Elizabeth Few Stokes. He has three children.

Mr. Stokes reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar;

(b) Greenville County Bar."

Mr. Stokes provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Boy Scouts of America. Offices: Den Leader, Assistant Cubmaster, Assistant Scoutmaster, Assistant District Commissioner for Foothills District, Blue Ridge Council. Honors/awards: Eagle Scout with Silver Palm, Vigil Honor, Webelos Den Leader of the Year, 2007;

(b) Blue Ridge Ruritan Club, President;

(d) Scottish Rite. Greenville, SC. No offices held;

(e) Few's Chapel United Methodist Church. Offices: Chairman, Administrative Council, Lay Leader, Trustee;

(f) Commerce Club. Greenville, SC. No offices held."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Mr. Stokes is known for his dedicated service to his community. They noted they were impressed with Mr. Stokes' patience which would benefit him well on the Family Court bench.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Mr. Stokes qualified, but not nominated, to serve as a Family Court judge.

Letitia H. Verdin
Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

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

Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Verdin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Verdin was born in 1970. She is 37 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Ms. Verdin 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 1997.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Verdin.
Ms. Verdin 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. Verdin reported that she has made $101.14 in campaign expenditures as follows: "$69.70 for postage and $31.44 for printing supplies."
Ms. Verdin 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. Verdin 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. Verdin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Verdin described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys

Association Trial Academy 06/12/02;

(b) South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys

Association Annual Meeting 11/07-09/02;

Association Annual Meeting 11/06-09/03;

(d) Ethical Issues and Alternative Dispute

Resolution 11/24/03;

(f) Title Insurance and the Order of Things 02/06/04;

(g) Negotiating the Hazards 06/11/04;

(h) Law Enforcement Defense 10/01/04;

(i) Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE 10/01/04;

(j) Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor's Conference 05/08-10/05;

(k) Fifteenth Annual Criminal Practice in

South Carolina Update 11/18/05;

(k) Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor's Conference 05/06-08/06;

(l) Auto Torts XXIX 12/01/06;

(m) 7th Annual Meeting Thirteenth Circuit

Solicitor's Conference 05/13-15/07;

(n) Hot Tips from the Coolest Domestic Law

Practitioners 09/21/07;

(o) 2007 Annual Solicitor's Conference 09/23/07;

(p) Family Court Bench/Bar 12/07/07;

(q) 2008 South Carolina Bar Convention Family Law

Section Meeting - Bits, Bytes, and Clips: The

Brave New World of E-Discovery and Evidence

01/25/08;

(r) 2008 South Carolina Bar Convention Children's

Law Committee Meeting - Child Advocacy: It's Not

For Babies - Emerging Issues in Children's Law

01/26/08."
Ms. Verdin reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) Effective Direct Examination of Witnesses, Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor's Conference, Pawley's Island, SC;

(b) Appellate Practice in South Carolina, Lecture to the Greenville Technical College Paralegal Program;

(c) Presiding Judge, American Mock Trial Association Regional Tournament."
Ms. Verdin reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

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

The Commission also noted that Ms. Verdin 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. Verdin provided the following regarding her rating in Martindale-Hubbell: "I am not listed and I assume that it is because I work for a government agency and have not requested a listing."
(6) Physical Health:
Ms. Verdin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Ms. Verdin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Ms. Verdin was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1997.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I began my career as an Assistant Solicitor in the Office of the Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor in August 1997. In 1998, my husband, also an attorney accepted a position in Greenwood, SC; therefore, I moved to the Office of the Eighth Circuit Solicitor. There I was responsible for prosecution of all juvenile cases in Family Court and prosecution of all child abuse and neglect cases for Greenwood, Abbeville, Laurens, and Newberry counties.

My husband and I returned to Greenville, SC in April 1999 when my husband accepted a position with the firm he practices with today. I returned to my position with the Office of the Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor. I prosecuted various types of crimes in Greenville and Pickens Counties, with a strong emphasis on child abuse and neglect cases. I was promoted to Head of the Family Court Unit in our office, which is located in the Greenville Family Court Complex and which is responsible for all juvenile prosecutions, juvenile diversion programs, and applications for Orders of Protection in our office.

In October 2000, I accepted a position as Associate Attorney with Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney, & Turner, P.A. in Greenville, SC. There I gained invaluable civil experience in the practice areas of government liability defense, insurance defense, and family law.

With a strong desire to return to public service, in May 2005, I accepted a position with the Office of the Thirteenth Solicitor. There I prosecute violent crimes, criminal domestic violence cases, and the most serious of child abuse cases. I work closely with the Department of Social Services in my cases to monitor ongoing Family Court proceedings and to become involved when appropriate and necessary. As my schedule permits, I also assist our Family Court Unit in the prosecution of juvenile cases and consult with the attorneys in that Unit on particularly problematic cases."

Ms. Verdin further reported:

"Divorce and Equitable Division of Property: I have been directly responsible for a limited number of divorce and equitable division actions in my practice. Knowing that is this is an area of Family Law with which I have had less direct experience, I have attempted to familiarize myself with the statutory and case law of this state and to attend relevant Continuing Legal Education seminars. I will continue to do so in order to knowledgeably, effectively, and fairly preside over Divorce and Equitable Division of Property matters. I have had extensive experience, however, in civil discovery, and that experience should serve me well in the presiding over even the most complex of discovery issues that will arise in these cases. Furthermore, divorce and equitable division of property cases require understanding the legal standards and factors to be considered, assessment of the credibility of witnesses, and meeting relevant burdens of proof, all of which I have extensive experience from my work as a prosecutor and my civil practice.

Child Custody and Adoption: I do not have direct experience practicing in these areas, but I have worked to more fully familiarize myself with the statutory and case law concerning them. I will continue to diligently apply myself as stated above to learn these areas.

Abuse and Neglect: Although my position as an Assistant Solicitor prevents me from directly representing parties in abuse and neglect proceedings in Family Court, I do have extensive experience in this area of the law. Approximately one third to one half of my docket is comprised of the most serious of child abuse and neglect cases in the Greenville County Solicitor's office. I have learned to deal effectively and compassionately with the child witness, while utilizing the resources such as forensic interviews, medical evidence, psychological reports, and other evidence to assess this very specialized type of case. Furthermore, one quarter to one third of my docket is comprised of domestic violence cases, and I have come to understand the unique and difficult challenges these cases possess. I work very closely with the Department of Social Services in both types of cases to monitor ongoing Family Court proceedings and to become involved in those proceedings when appropriate and necessary.

Juvenile Justice: I have extensive experience in this area of the law, as well. I have served as the prosecutor in charge of all juvenile matters in six counties. I have handled every type of juvenile justice case, including cases appropriate for diversionary programs, status offenses such as Truancy and Runaway, cases for which probation or evaluation is appropriate, cases warranting confinement at the Department of Juvenile Justice, and situations where waiver to the Court of General Sessions is necessary. Furthermore, I have evaluated cases and made recommendations where it is appropriate that other agencies such as the Department of Social Services or the Department of Mental Health assume the role of lead agency."
Ms. Verdin reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Federal: occasionally;

(b) State: on average, one to two times per week."
Ms. Verdin reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Civil: 35%;

(b) Criminal: 55%;

(c) Domestic: 10%; however, for two to three years of my ten year practice, 95% of my cases were domestic matters."
Ms. Verdin reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Jury: 3-4%;

(b) Non-jury: 96-97%."
Ms. Verdin provided that she most often serves as sole counsel.

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

(a) "State of South Carolina v. Patel and the companion divorce action, Patel v. Patel - This was a criminal defense matter in which I was involved while in private practice and its companion divorce action. The wife was charged with Arson and Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill for setting fire to her husband's hotel room while he was inside. I assisted in the criminal defense of the wife, and represented her in the divorce action. She was sued for divorce on the ground of a single act of extreme physical cruelty. It was necessary that I protect her rights in the divorce action while ensuring that she did not jeopardize her criminal defense;

(b) State of South Carolina v. Ricky Sanders - This defendant was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor 1st Degree for sexually abusing his girlfriend's daughter. This case was significant for me because it was the first time our office was successful in having a Forensic Interviewer qualified as an expert witness in the Court of General Sessions. The interviewer's testimony, coupled with the testimony of the child, was instrumental in securing a guilty plea from the defendant during trial;

(c) Barnes v. Kevin Matheson, Anderson County Sheriff's Department, the City of Clayton Police Department, and the Rabun County Sheriff's Department - This was a case while I was in private practice that alleged excessive use of force and other Section 1983 claims against law enforcement officials. I represented Deputy Kevin Matheson and the Anderson County Sheriff's Department. The case involved an escapee, who when eventually surrounded by officers, attempted to run over an officer. Deputy Matheson shot and killed the woman in order to save the officer's life. The case involved numerous constitutional law issues, including that of extra-jurisdictional pursuits. Our motion for summary judgment was granted as to all claims against Deputy Matheson and the Anderson County Sheriff's Department;

(d) In re: R.M. - This was a case in which a juvenile shot and killed her uncle with whom she resided. Our office had a policy at that time of petitioning the Family Court for waiver to General Sessions in every murder case in order for full evaluation by the court. The juvenile had been abandoned by her mother, her father was deceased, and defense experts testified that they believed the child was the victim of sexual abuse by the uncle, a fact much later confirmed. The judge in this matter applied the Kent factors and determined that the juvenile was not appropriate for waiver to General Sessions Court. This case is significant to me because it was at the beginning of my Family Court career and it illustrates the integrative and rehabilitative goals of juvenile justice. Though technically a loss for the prosecution, it was a win for the system. While the juvenile's crime was horrific, she spent the remainder of her adolescence and early adulthood in the Department of Juvenile Justice receiving intensive services, and after a transition period, it is my understanding that she has become a productive, law-abiding adult;

(e) State of South Carolina v. Shad Shepherd - This was a case that I prosecuted in which the young father shook his four month old baby violently causing permanent brain damage and partial blindness. This matter was not only significant because of its facts, but also because it was one of the earlier shaken baby syndrome cases successfully prosecuted by our office. The case also necessitated very sophisticated medical evidence and expert testimony in order to establish that the child had not been accidentally dropped thereby causing her injuries."

The following is Ms. Verdin's account of a civil appeal she has personally handled:

"(a) Cox and Rider v. City of Charleston, Rueben Greenberg, Joseph Riley, Captain Chin, Charleston Police Department, Officer Davis, City of Travelers Rest, Mann Batson, and Timothy Christy, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, July 26, 2005, 416 F.3d 281."

Ms. Verdin reported she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
(9) Judicial Temperament:

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

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported the following regarding Ms. Verdin: "Constitutional qualifications: Based on the Personal Data Questionnaire, this candidate appears to have all the necessary qualifications. Ethical fitness: The committee has not discovered any information that would lead us to question the ethical fitness of this candidate. Professional and academic ability: The candidate appears to have all the necessary professional and academic ability. Character: The committee has no reason to believe this candidate has any negative character traits. Reputation: The candidate enjoys a favorable reputation in the community and amongst her legal peers. Physical health and mental stability: The candidate appears to be in good physical and mental health. Experience: The candidate has significant experience in prosecuting juveniles in Family Court. While she does not actually participate in DSS cases, they often parallel the cases she prosecutes in the solicitor's office. However, the candidate has had no experience in matrimonial cases. Judicial temperament: The committee believes that this candidate would have an excellent judicial temperament."
Ms. Verdin is married to Charles Smith Verdin IV. She has two children.
Ms. Verdin reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) Greenville County Bar Association;

(b) South Carolina Bar Association;

1. Criminal Law Section;

2. Family Law Section."
Ms. Verdin provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Safe Harbor, Board Member;

(b) United Way, Young Philanthropist Board Member;

(d) Westminster Presbyterian Church, Sunday School Teacher."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Ms. Verdin has an outstanding temperament and intellect. They noted that her courtroom experience with the Solicitor's office prosecuting juveniles would be an asset to the Family Court bench.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found her qualified and nominated her for election to the Family Court.

CONCLUSION

The following candidates were found qualified and nominated:

John D. Geathers, Court of Appeals, Seat 3
Robert N. Jenkins, Sr., Court of Appeals, Seat 3
Alison Renee Lee, Court of Appeals, Seat 3
J. Mark Hayes, II, Court of Appeals, Seat 9
J. Rene' Josey, Court of Appeals, Seat 9
James E. Lockemy, Court of Appeals, Seat 9
Alex Kinlaw, Jr., Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
W. Marsh Robertson, Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Letitia H. Verdin, Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3

Respectfully submitted,
Rep. F.G. Delleney, Jr. Sen. James H. Ritchie, Jr.
Sen. Robert Ford Rep. Doug Smith
Sen. John M. "Jake" Knotts, Jr. Rep. Fletcher N. Smith, Jr.
Mr. John P. Freeman John Davis Harrell
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester H. Donald Sellers

ADJOURNMENT

At 11:20 A.M., on motion of Senator LOURIE, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, May 6, 2008, at 12:00 Noon.

* * *

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 1:50 P.M.